Slave states vs Bible Belt

yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Here are the slave states:



And here is the Bible Belt:



Do these images look similar, and is there a connection?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

I think there's a connection. If one views life hierarchically as is taught by bible believers then slavery is a natural manifestation.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by K.Snyder »

Let's see the similarities between the op and the states that voted in the last 4 presidential elections

Summary of results of the 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

Attached files
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by K.Snyder »

K.Snyder;1395870 wrote: Let's see the similarities between the op and the states that voted in the last 4 presidential elections

Red states and blue states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI'm currently wondering what the percentages of ethnically diverse states are in relation to the latest voting trends.

Seems to me that the blue states are more culturally diverse than the states in red.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12933
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

Ahso!;1395869 wrote: I think there's a connection. If one views life hierarchically as is taught by bible believers then slavery is a natural manifestation.


Only a few (relative to the population of believers) ignorant types really think that the Bible justified slavery, and those are not limited to the South.

And how does one correlate the concentration of conservative trends in the West to the OP?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12933
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

K.Snyder;1395871 wrote: I'm currently wondering what the percentages of ethnically diverse states are in relation to the latest voting trends.

Seems to me that the blue states are more culturally diverse than the states in red.


Seems that way.

I rather like this map showing results by county though:

Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15981
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Bryn Mawr »

For us higgorent foreigners, which way do you colour your maps?

For us it's red to the left (Labour) and blue to the right (Conservative).
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

Bryn Mawr;1395876 wrote: For us higgorent foreigners, which way do you colour your maps?

For us it's red to the left (Labour) and blue to the right (Conservative).It's the other way around here. Blue=liberal, Red=conservative.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15981
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Ahso!;1395877 wrote: It's the other way around here. Blue=liberal, Red=conservative.


I suspected so from the distribution but it's nice to be sure.
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Wandrin »

In the build-up to the Civil War, virtually every religious group in the US went through a major schism. Preachers and church leaders in the south were using the Bible to defend slavery while their counterparts in the north were using the same Bible to condemn it. The Baptists, for example, spawned the Southern Baptists, which condoned slavery. While the primary issue was slavery, the newly formed southern religious organizations also railed against the "intellectuals" and "elitists" in the north. Sound familiar?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12933
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

Wandrin;1395882 wrote: In the build-up to the Civil War, virtually every religious group in the US went through a major schism. Preachers and church leaders in the south were using the Bible to defend slavery while their counterparts in the north were using the same Bible to condemn it. The Baptists, for example, spawned the Southern Baptists, which condoned slavery. While the primary issue was slavery, the newly formed southern religious organizations also railed against the "intellectuals" and "elitists" in the north. Sound familiar?
All too.

except it is no longer limited to the "Ignorant South"
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

LarsMac;1395874 wrote: Only a few (relative to the population of believers) ignorant types really think that the Bible justified slavery, and those are not limited to the South.I personally interpret the bible as pure slavery, but that wasn't what I was referring to in my post. What I was talking about is the idea that humans are God's special guests in life and everything else is there to serve God and his special guests. All that is required from that point is to convince oneself that the other life form is different enough to be excluded as one of God's special guests and place them in the other category. Skin color, gender, speech impediments and a whole host of "disorders" and differences have been used to justify our belief in slave making. We even do this with our young. If they agree to "serve" their country, their "slavery" status gets transformed into "hero" billing. Of course we're all slaves to the economy and those who refuse to get labeled as lazy.

LarsMac;1395874 wrote: And how does one correlate the concentration of conservative trends in the West to the OP?I don't understand this question.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12933
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

Slavery was not unique to the Bible, or Christianity, or even to the Jewish culture from which the Bible evolved.

While there are certain racial implications around the system of slavery that existed in the southern US, it really had little to do with the Bible.

Chances are, should one study the history of the region, one would find that the so called Bible Belt is more a result of the region's history than as cause, and Slavery was more a cause of the southern culture than the result of it.

One should remember that even those cultures to whom we credit the creation of Democracy were slave cultures.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Wandrin »

In the early colonies, religion played a dominant role. The Pilgrims and other groups came to escape "persecution" by other Christians who believed slightly differently. The religion controlled the workplace, the police, the courts, the schools, and every other aspect of life. It is interesting to note the little changes the Pilgrims made to their beliefs to get the workers to work harder.

In the years before the Civil War, wealth and power was centered in the industrial northeast, with a few barons holding most. The south was primarily agricultural and provided raw materials (cotton) to the barons, who set the price. Slavery was a way to produce the cotton at a price where a profit could be made. When those in the north began the push to outlaw slavery, one of the reasons was to exert more economic control over the south. The south resented that move.

Just as with the early colonies, religion was an integral part of the culture. It was natural for slavery to be integrated into the religion, as it had been for a couple of thousand years. To the south, the move to outlaw slavery was an attack on their culture, as much as anything.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12933
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

Slavery was quite common throughout Europe and the colonies until the beginning of the 19th century. It was hardly unique to American colonies.

England declared slavery illegal within England in 1772, but seemed to have no problem with it in the colonies until long after the US had gained independence.

With technological advances in the early 19th century slavery was rapidly becoming an anachronism.

Slave owners in the South just wanted to maintain the way of life they had become accustomed to, and refused to give in to modern times. (sound familiar?)
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by K.Snyder »

LarsMac;1395875 wrote: Seems that way.

I rather like this map showing results by county though:

County to county has a much higher difference of population ratios. A county of a population of 1000 will show up in red compared to a blue county consisting of 5 million. State by state is a closer gradient when considering the trends of the entire country.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1395877 wrote: It's the other way around here. Blue=liberal, Red=conservative.
Ahso!;1395877 wrote: [QUOTE=Bryn Mawr;1395876]For us higgorent foreigners, which way do you colour your maps?

For us it's red to the left (Labour) and blue to the right (Conservative).It's the other way around here. Blue=liberal, Red=conservative.
Close. Red indicates that a majority of its electorate voted for the Republican candidate. Blue indicates that a majority of its electorate voted for the Democratic candidate. There is very little difference between the two, ideologically.

*Note: it's very important that the words remain capitalized, since Democratic candidates don't support democracy and Republican candidates don't support republicanism.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Ahso!;1395890 wrote: I personally interpret the bible as pure slavery, but that wasn't what I was referring to in my post. What I was talking about is the idea that humans are God's special guests in life and everything else is there to serve God and his special guests. All that is required from that point is to convince oneself that the other life form is different enough to be excluded as one of God's special guests and place them in the other category. Skin color, gender, speech impediments and a whole host of "disorders" and differences have been used to justify our belief in slave making. We even do this with our young. If they agree to "serve" their country, their "slavery" status gets transformed into "hero" billing. Of course we're all slaves to the economy and those who refuse to get labeled as lazy.

I don't understand this question.


That's an interesting point. I wonder what emotional lesson a kid learns when they are taught to believe that God confines tortures people in Hell. If they are taught to turn a blind eye to this suffering, and worship this God as good and perfectly just, then why would they care if the same type of abuse is happening in the barn out back? What they are essentially worshipping is the idea that "might makes right," a pecking order should be established, and no abuse of power is too extreme.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Clodhopper »

Interesting the Slave states and Bible Belt coincide to such an extent. Are there any other maps, demographic, geological, climatic or any other anyone can think of that show a similar separation of the bottom right from the rest of the US?

edit: I assume the Civil War map is covered by the Slave State idea.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Clodhopper;1395978 wrote: Interesting the Slave states and Bible Belt coincide to such an extent. Are there any other maps, demographic, geological, climatic or any other anyone can think of that show a similar separation of the bottom right from the rest of the US?

edit: I assume the Civil War map is covered by the Slave State idea.
I found this by searching temperate zone maps.

Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1395987 wrote: I found this by searching temperate zone maps.That's right, no critical thinking about religion. No peeking behind the curtain. No coming back to the cave to let the others know the reality of it all.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Accountable;1395987 wrote: [QUOTE=Clodhopper;1395978]Interesting the Slave states and Bible Belt coincide to such an extent. Are there any other maps, demographic, geological, climatic or any other anyone can think of that show a similar separation of the bottom right from the rest of the US?
I found this by searching temperate zone maps.[/QUOTE]Ahso!;1395993 wrote: That's right, no critical thinking about religion. No peeking behind the curtain. No coming back to the cave to let the others know the reality of it all.
:-2 WTF are you on about?
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15981
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1395930 wrote: Close. Red indicates that a majority of its electorate voted for the Republican candidate. Blue indicates that a majority of its electorate voted for the Democratic candidate. There is very little difference between the two, ideologically.

*Note: it's very important that the words remain capitalized, since Democratic candidates don't support democracy and Republican candidates don't support republicanism.


I do find it amusing that your "reds" are the republicans rather than the socialists.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15981
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Ahso!;1395993 wrote: That's right, no critical thinking about religion. No peeking behind the curtain. No coming back to the cave to let the others know the reality of it all.


Not at all, it makes great sense that the slave states should be those where the climate supports crops that need mass labour to cultivate. Not much use for slaves on a cattle ranch, too risky in a factory, the wheat harvest is too short a part of the year to make keeping the slaves for the rest of it economical, etc.

Map out the rest of the areas where the use of slaves was common at the time - same sort of work in the same sort of climate.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Bryn Mawr;1396005 wrote: I do find it amusing that your "reds" are the republicans rather than the socialists.
I often grin when I think about it.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Bryn Mawr;1396006 wrote: Not at all, it makes great sense that the slave states should be those where the climate supports crops that need mass labour to cultivate. Not much use for slaves on a cattle ranch, too risky in a factory, the wheat harvest is too short a part of the year to make keeping the slaves for the rest of it economical, etc.

Map out the rest of the areas where the use of slaves was common at the time - same sort of work in the same sort of climate.
That makes sense, but what of the religious aspect? Africans didn't come already Christian, thought many were presumably superstitious. I believe many of the poorer farmers were of Irish and Scots stock. Did they bring religious zealotry with them? What I mean is that evangelism didn't spring out of the fertile cotton fields. It migrated then mutated.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

I've been trying to find something online about how the Bible Belt developed, but I'm coming up empty-handed. I found this, probably in the same Wiki article that Yarg found the red map.

User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by AnneBoleyn »

"I've been trying to find something online about how the Bible Belt developed, but I'm coming up empty-handed. I found this, probably in the same Wiki article that Yarg found the red map."

Accountable, I want to recommend this PBS documentary, which you can watch online, called God in America.

God In America: Watch the Full Program Online | PBS

I am hopefully sure your question might be answered. I saw the show last year, and it was greatly informative, as well as entertaining.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Clodhopper »

I asked because I wondered if there were any other explanation for the Bible Belt being where it is other than the association with an agricultural hierarchical slave owning society. I wondered if perhaps it were particularly poor, or there were some other explanation that would leap out. The climate map fits the slave owning data and other than that there doesn't seem to be anything.

That the two coincide strongly suggests to me that they are linked. I simply don't know enough about it to say how, though I can guess that the mindsets might have connections.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12933
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

Clodhopper;1396023 wrote: I asked because I wondered if there were any other explanation for the Bible Belt being where it is other than the association with an agricultural hierarchical slave owning society. I wondered if perhaps it were particularly poor, or there were some other explanation that would leap out. The climate map fits the slave owning data and other than that there doesn't seem to be anything.

That the two coincide strongly suggests to me that they are linked. I simply don't know enough about it to say how, though I can guess that the mindsets might have connections.


There definitely is a link, to some degree.

The slave states were agriculture, and very little industry. Like England in India, the North would purchase the raw cotton, and process it, and sell the product back to the Southern customers.

While the discussion over slavery was going on, technological advances were coming that would make slaves obsolete for agriculture, so the culture was already doomed.

Thanks to Henry Clay and the like, the South tried to resist the tide.

The war costs the South all of their resources, and many of their young men.

When Lincoln was assassinated, any hope of a peaceful reconciliation were dashed, and the Industrial North moved in for the kill.

"Reconstruction" took what little the South had left, and the majority of Southerners were left homeless, and without means to support their families.

The "Poor White Trash" of the South had little to rely upon, except their religion.

They were easy marks for the protestant revivalists.

The former slaves, of course, were no better off. They had no home, and no work, and the Carpetbaggers and Re-constructionists had little use for them. They were left to compete with the whites for resources. The one thing that had helped them keep their heads during the days of slavery was their religion. It was the one thing on which they could still rely.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

AnneBoleyn;1396022 wrote: "I've been trying to find something online about how the Bible Belt developed, but I'm coming up empty-handed. I found this, probably in the same Wiki article that Yarg found the red map."

Accountable, I want to recommend this PBS documentary, which you can watch online, called God in America.

God In America: Watch the Full Program Online | PBS

I am hopefully sure your question might be answered. I saw the show last year, and it was greatly informative, as well as entertaining.Awesome! Thanks! I'm such a docu-geek. :yh_glasse
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Clodhopper »

LarsMac;1396025 wrote: There definitely is a link, to some degree.

The slave states were agriculture, and very little industry. Like England in India, the North would purchase the raw cotton, and process it, and sell the product back to the Southern customers.

While the discussion over slavery was going on, technological advances were coming that would make slaves obsolete for agriculture, so the culture was already doomed.

Thanks to Henry Clay and the like, the South tried to resist the tide.

The war costs the South all of their resources, and many of their young men.

When Lincoln was assassinated, any hope of a peaceful reconciliation were dashed, and the Industrial North moved in for the kill.

"Reconstruction" took what little the South had left, and the majority of Southerners were left homeless, and without means to support their families.

The "Poor White Trash" of the South had little to rely upon, except their religion.

They were easy marks for the protestant revivalists.

The former slaves, of course, were no better off. They had no home, and no work, and the Carpetbaggers and Re-constructionists had little use for them. They were left to compete with the whites for resources. The one thing that had helped them keep their heads during the days of slavery was their religion. It was the one thing on which they could still rely.


Makes a lot of sense. I wonder if an awareness of the state of the South in general after your Civil War helped Marshall decide on his Plan after WW2?

Also occurs to me that in a way the States has got off lightly with Southern Baptism when you consider what happened in the even worse (so I have heard) situation which existed in Haiti, producing Voodoo...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1395993 wrote: That's right, no critical thinking about religion. No peeking behind the curtain. No coming back to the cave to let the others know the reality of it all.
Not by anyone, it appears, including you.

Ahso!;1395869 wrote: I think there's a connection. If one views life hierarchically as is taught by bible believers then slavery is a natural manifestation.
Possibly, but that would call for the entire country to be slave states. What explains the Bible belt replacing the slave states?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1396065 wrote: Possibly, but that would call for the entire country to be slave states.They were, weren't they? The northern states participated in the slave trade, especially early on and I suspect continued to do so in the dark corners and alleyways later. Except for a small number of folks like The Quakers and the fact that the economy in the north didn't support slavery like the souther climate did the north is guilty too.

I think the north only appears less religious when compared to the south. Northerners were religious also but history portrays southerners and especially their leaders back then as much more religiously obsessive. Have you ever watched Gods and Generals?Accountable;1396065 wrote: What explains the Bible belt replacing the slave states?It's a label the south appears to enjoy wearing and the rest of the world is satisfied classifying the american south as. Generally speaking, until rather recently, the american south never really objected to the "slave states" label. Or did they?

There's no doubt in my mind that a majority of american southern state residents still choose to honor the traditions of the people who've been set up as heroes down there. That will change. I'd just like to see the change occur in my lifetime. I've lived long enough to see the beginning and I'll need to settle for that. Not that it will matter to me after I'm dead.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15981
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1396017 wrote: That makes sense, but what of the religious aspect? Africans didn't come already Christian, thought many were presumably superstitious. I believe many of the poorer farmers were of Irish and Scots stock. Did they bring religious zealotry with them? What I mean is that evangelism didn't spring out of the fertile cotton fields. It migrated then mutated.


Poverty and hardship often lead to people falling back on religion as an antidote to the life they are leading. I imagine that the slaves had little choice but to convert given the position they were in.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Bryn Mawr;1396121 wrote: Poverty and hardship often lead to people falling back on religion as an antidote to the life they are leading. I imagine that the slaves had little choice but to convert given the position they were in.
The implication in the OP seems to be that we are the Bible belt because we were the slave states. If poverty and oppression are more to blame, then it would seem that the Northern states are the real culprit.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1396140 wrote: If poverty and oppression are more to blame, then it would seem that the Northern states are the real culprit.So you're saying negative economic consequences and oppression are not the fault of those suffering from them? That's a libertarian position?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1396172 wrote: So you're saying negative economic consequences and oppression are not the fault of those suffering from them? That's a libertarian position?


Macro v Micro

Is this a discussion about the SE United States or about whether a label fits me?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1396183 wrote: Macro v Micro

Is this a discussion about the SE United States or about whether a label fits me?Okay! So you're saying negative economic consequences and oppression are not the fault of those suffering from them?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

I'll have to watch the pbs documentary, but I find it hard to believe that the South found religion after the war. To me the general trend seems like religious interest has gradually declined over time.

Back in the early days of America, hell-fire-brimstone preaching was fairly common even in the north (like with Jonathan Edwards 'Sinners in the hands of an angry God'). Even over the last 50 years what used to be considered liberal is now considered mainstream. I think if modern Christians went back to bible times, they would probably be stoned to death for over two dozen offenses.

The entire country used to be a bible belt. What seems more likely to me is that the North lost it's interest in religion at a faster rate than the South, possibly because of industrialization and an increase in the standard of living.

But in that regard, I don't see how climate would influence the rate of industrialization, since technological advances apply both to the city labor as well as farm labor. Now, large farms are so technologically advanced, the tractor basically drives itself by GPS. And with combines to harvest the crop, the entire system is almost completely automated. This technology is likely more efficient than using slave labor, so there's not really a business case for continuing the human rights abuse.

Also, as far as agriculture being the driving factor in slavery, I thought the majority of the U.S. agriculture occurred in the climate belt above the south, like with corn, wheat, soybeans, potatoes. In the "bread basket" of the U.S. If agriculture was driving slavery, wouldn't we expect to see the practice localized in the the center of the U.S.?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Watch the documentary. I've seen two episodes so far. Very informative & well done.

As for the bread basket, don't forget that much of that was still wilderness during most of the slavery period. I don't think we were really able to exploit the Great Plains until railroads & the industrial revolution, which destroyed the slave trade.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12933
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

yaaarrrgg;1396196 wrote: I'll have to watch the pbs documentary, but I find it hard to believe that the South found religion after the war. To me the general trend seems like religious interest has gradually declined over time.

Back in the early days of America, hell-fire-brimstone preaching was fairly common even in the north (like with Jonathan Edwards 'Sinners in the hands of an angry God'). Even over the last 50 years what used to be considered liberal is now considered mainstream. I think if modern Christians went back to bible times, they would probably be stoned to death for over two dozen offenses.

The entire country used to be a bible belt. What seems more likely to me is that the North lost it's interest in religion at a faster rate than the South, possibly because of industrialization and an increase in the standard of living.

But in that regard, I don't see how climate would influence the rate of industrialization, since technological advances apply both to the city labor as well as farm labor. Now, large farms are so technologically advanced, the tractor basically drives itself by GPS. And with combines to harvest the crop, the entire system is almost completely automated. This technology is likely more efficient than using slave labor, so there's not really a business case for continuing the human rights abuse.

Also, as far as agriculture being the driving factor in slavery, I thought the majority of the U.S. agriculture occurred in the climate belt above the south, like with corn, wheat, soybeans, potatoes. In the "bread basket" of the U.S. If agriculture was driving slavery, wouldn't we expect to see the practice localized in the the center of the U.S.?


As the North industrialized, and cities grew around the factories and such, the populace became far less influenced by the evangelical type preaching. most of the northern populace were Catholic, or Lutheran, and organized around the authoritarian churches.

In the South, where Protestantism had held sway since before the civil war, evangelical denominations found fertile ground in the rural, agricultural population.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15981
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1396140 wrote: The implication in the OP seems to be that we are the Bible belt because we were the slave states. If poverty and oppression are more to blame, then it would seem that the Northern states are the real culprit.


I don't see that it can be coincidence that the two overlie each other but neither do I see it as slavery caused religion. Loosing the war and the resultant poverty would be a far better bet as would the skewed demographic.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15981
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Bryn Mawr »

yaaarrrgg;1396196 wrote: I'll have to watch the pbs documentary, but I find it hard to believe that the South found religion after the war. To me the general trend seems like religious interest has gradually declined over time.

Back in the early days of America, hell-fire-brimstone preaching was fairly common even in the north (like with Jonathan Edwards 'Sinners in the hands of an angry God'). Even over the last 50 years what used to be considered liberal is now considered mainstream. I think if modern Christians went back to bible times, they would probably be stoned to death for over two dozen offenses.

The entire country used to be a bible belt. What seems more likely to me is that the North lost it's interest in religion at a faster rate than the South, possibly because of industrialization and an increase in the standard of living.

But in that regard, I don't see how climate would influence the rate of industrialization, since technological advances apply both to the city labor as well as farm labor. Now, large farms are so technologically advanced, the tractor basically drives itself by GPS. And with combines to harvest the crop, the entire system is almost completely automated. This technology is likely more efficient than using slave labor, so there's not really a business case for continuing the human rights abuse.

Also, as far as agriculture being the driving factor in slavery, I thought the majority of the U.S. agriculture occurred in the climate belt above the south, like with corn, wheat, soybeans, potatoes. In the "bread basket" of the U.S. If agriculture was driving slavery, wouldn't we expect to see the practice localized in the the center of the U.S.?


Can you harvest cotton with machinery? You certainly couldn't then and it was that fact, along with the climate that resulted in cotton being the main crop that led to the extensive use of slaves (in my non-expert opinion of course :))
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

AnneBoleyn;1396022 wrote: "I've been trying to find something online about how the Bible Belt developed, but I'm coming up empty-handed. I found this, probably in the same Wiki article that Yarg found the red map."

Accountable, I want to recommend this PBS documentary, which you can watch online, called God in America.

God In America: Watch the Full Program Online | PBS

I am hopefully sure your question might be answered. I saw the show last year, and it was greatly informative, as well as entertaining.
Dangit! Episode three had some revisionist history, implying that Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. I still enjoy the program, but I have to take what's said with a grain of salt, and I can't rely on what was said earlier because of a possible spin they might have given it by leaving out key details. :(
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12933
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

Bryn Mawr;1396238 wrote: Can you harvest cotton with machinery? You certainly couldn't then and it was that fact, along with the climate that resulted in cotton being the main crop that led to the extensive use of slaves (in my non-expert opinion of course :))


You can, now, but even when I was young, cotton was picked by hand.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Bryn Mawr;1396236 wrote: I don't see that it can be coincidence that the two overlie each other but neither do I see it as slavery caused religion. Loosing the war and the resultant poverty would be a far better bet as would the skewed demographic.


In this timeline, wouldn't slavery still be the ultimate cause in the casual chain:

slavery issue -> war -> poverty -> religion

IOW, if A causes B, and B causes C, then doesn't A cause C?

I think it's plausible that we could add a cause preceding this chain like:

settlers in warm climate -> agriculture + lack of political structure -> slavery

But I wouldn't see agriculture by itself as the direct cause of slavery. It is plausible that in combination with other factors, it may be a contributing cause. Such as hard grueling labor, combined with a political system bordering on anarchy, may create conditions ripe for human exploitation. Ultimately though I think slavery may come down to a social choice, since those who work on the farm can choose to work side by side with the people picking cotton (cut the pie evenly), or they choose to create a hierarchy where the people who do the most work get the least economic reward (inverted capitalism). This choice is largely decided by a person's world view, and their opinion of social hierarchy, and whether it's okay to confine and punish people against their free will. These are questions I would expect would be addressed and given answers in religion.

So, I think the casual chain might look like:

settlers in warm climate -> agriculture + lack of political structure + Old Testament religious worldview -> slavery

Of course, the north is responsible for slavery as well, since they started the practice, and most likely purchased products produced by slave labor. What the north did might be like a "not in my backyard" slave arrangement, much like what the U.S. enjoys in relation to third world countries producing our products under poor working conditions. So long as it's out of sight and out of mind, the slavery doesn't exist.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15981
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Bryn Mawr »

yaaarrrgg;1396354 wrote: In this timeline, wouldn't slavery still be the ultimate cause in the casual chain:

slavery issue -> war -> poverty -> religion

IOW, if A causes B, and B causes C, then doesn't A cause C?

I think it's plausible that we could add a cause preceding this chain like:

settlers in warm climate -> agriculture + lack of political structure -> slavery

But I wouldn't see agriculture by itself as the direct cause of slavery. It is plausible that in combination with other factors, it may be a contributing cause. Such as hard grueling labor, combined with a political system bordering on anarchy, may create conditions ripe for human exploitation. Ultimately though I think slavery may come down to a social choice, since those who work on the farm can choose to work side by side with the people picking cotton (cut the pie evenly), or they choose to create a hierarchy where the people who do the most work get the least economic reward (inverted capitalism). This choice is largely decided by a person's world view, and their opinion of social hierarchy, and whether it's okay to confine and punish people against their free will. These are questions I would expect would be addressed and given answers in religion.

So, I think the casual chain might look like:

settlers in warm climate -> agriculture + lack of political structure + Old Testament religious worldview -> slavery



Of course, the north is responsible for slavery as well, since they started the practice, and most likely purchased products produced by slave labor. What the north did might be like a "not in my backyard" slave arrangement, much like what the U.S. enjoys in relation to third world countries producing our products under poor working conditions. So long as it's out of sight and out of mind, the slavery doesn't exist.


I like that but what I don't know is how the religious climate varied through the timeline - both inside the bible belt and out.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12933
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

yaaarrrgg;1396354 wrote: In this timeline, wouldn't slavery still be the ultimate cause in the casual chain:

slavery issue -> war -> poverty -> religion

IOW, if A causes B, and B causes C, then doesn't A cause C?

I think it's plausible that we could add a cause preceding this chain like:

settlers in warm climate -> agriculture + lack of political structure -> slavery

But I wouldn't see agriculture by itself as the direct cause of slavery. It is plausible that in combination with other factors, it may be a contributing cause. Such as hard grueling labor, combined with a political system bordering on anarchy, may create conditions ripe for human exploitation. Ultimately though I think slavery may come down to a social choice, since those who work on the farm can choose to work side by side with the people picking cotton (cut the pie evenly), or they choose to create a hierarchy where the people who do the most work get the least economic reward (inverted capitalism). This choice is largely decided by a person's world view, and their opinion of social hierarchy, and whether it's okay to confine and punish people against their free will. These are questions I would expect would be addressed and given answers in religion.

So, I think the casual chain might look like:

settlers in warm climate -> agriculture + lack of political structure + Old Testament religious worldview -> slavery

Of course, the north is responsible for slavery as well, since they started the practice, and most likely purchased products produced by slave labor. What the north did might be like a "not in my backyard" slave arrangement, much like what the U.S. enjoys in relation to third world countries producing our products under poor working conditions. So long as it's out of sight and out of mind, the slavery doesn't exist.


Firstly, no, the ultimate cause began with the mindset of the colonists who decided that the use of slaves resolved the problems of production.

Slavery was not limited to the south, it was common throughout the colonies. The British began the task of abolition long before the colonies revolted. most of the New England colonies abolished slavery by the revolutionary period.

The South was so reliant upon slaves to produce profitable crops, they had little choice. The question was put off during the constitutional sessions, in fear that the South as a whole would refuse to accept the new constitution.

James Oglethorpe, the founder of the Georgia Colony argued against slavery, but was overruled by the colonial government.

Religion was not more the result of the war, or of slavery, than it was the cause of either.

And, don't think for a minute that we have abolished slavery in the world.

It is now just comfortably far away from us civilized folks.

So long as it's out of sight and out of mind, the slavery doesn't exist.


SLAVERY in Modern Times

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | slavery

Slavery — a problem in modern times
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Wandrin »

In small agricultural towns, before cars and highways, the one church in town was the center of the towns social and cultural life. The chance were good that everyone you knew locally was a member of the same church. It was quite different than the urban landscape of the northern states.

The industry was concentrated in the north. With the industry came a concentration of wealth and political power. The barons of industry needed the cotton and leather produced in the southern states, but they wanted to control the price. The factory owners colluded to keep the price of their raw materials low.

When the north became serious about abolishing slavery, they were not interested in talking about long term plans and phasing in the changes. They enlisted religious leaders to preach against slavery. They caused schisms in virtually every protestant denomination, isolating the churches in the south.

The southern churches and towns reacted to the enforced isolation by growing closer. The southerners felt that the industry barons and elites of the north were attacking their traditions, their commerce, their religion, and their very way of life. It became an them-vs-us situation.

--- the above is the way it was taught in the southern boarding school that I briefly attended.

Return to “Societal Issues News”