Band of Angels

 Band of Angels shows a very different viewpoint of the South than Gone With the Wind. Gone with the Wind portrays an air of superiority in the south while Band of Angel breaks that notion very quickly. Each movie varies in its sympathy towards Slaves and their treatment.

Slaves in Gone with the Wind are portrayed as fully subservient and enjoying their enslavement. The never breaks this stereotypical look at slaves and slavery. It portrays them as incapable, bumbling, and stupid. Band of Angles show slaves as varying on thier opinion of their enslavement. Characters like Ra Ru did not enjoy serving their master Hamish Bond. While not all the slave were educated which was accurate they portrayed more intelligence and humanity. The slaves had real emotion and individual behavior rather than a group identity.

Gone with the wind's view of the south is that it was this once great institution destroyed by the North which is true to an extent. It depicts the destruction of the south and their way of life with the goal of creating sympathy for the south. It basically gave a southern aristocrats view of the Civil War. Band of Angels shows the North as not quite heroes but much more sympathetic than Gone with the Wind. It portrayed who would seem to be the weakest a white woman into the role of a slave and fully exposed her to slave treatment. It would have been horrific to white audiences to see women treated this way. It generates sympathy for slaves and distaint for the south. The sympathy is tempered with belief in the inferiority of blacks and their lack of education. The movie seems quite progressive for it’s time.

Band of Angels is a movie that has much more sympathy for black people and is far more generous to the north than Gone with Wind. Gone with the Wind was more generous to the south.

Band of Angels

Image 1

Image 2

State v. Mann: Trial 1

  This is the religious argument defending Mann in the State v. Mann case. This case pertains to Mann shooting a rented slave name Lydia. He was required to pay a 10 dollar fine to her own for her injury. His case won increased rights for slaves while only a small victory it goes a long way to win humanity for black Americans.

From a Judeo-Christian perspective Mr. Mann should be fully absolved of his fine. The fine far exceeds what is reasonable for damages under the circumstances. Article 1 tells us that only authority in this world are those that God has allowed. Article 1 specifically says in Roman 13:1-2, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” God therefore had allowed John Mann to be in charge and she disobeyed him. Slavery is an institution allowed and even encourage by God and he has put people in their own places. Article 1 instruct slaves to be trust worthy before their master. The direct quote from Article I , “Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience (Romans 13:5).” Running is being untrustworthy. How as a borrower can I trust that she would not flee again and then be held liable for her loss. She is not my property so If I lose her I would have to pay her full value back to my lender. 

The vary reason I would rent slaves is that my defedendant cannot afford them to purchase them and would you gouge a poor man. Article 2 says, “If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you (Leviticus 25:35-36).” The promises that if we continue to take care of each other then we will bring glory to God. The Defendant as of late have declared bankruptcy and this slave rental could have set Mr. Mann back on my feet. Being a planter he needs laborers to care for the field and aid him in picking his crops.  He is trying to start an honest life for himself after some criminal behavior. Your client must understand that this is a difficult season. 

The situation occurred as Lydia proceed to run the defendant causing him to draw his weapon and fire upon the slave. He rendered her unable to run and did not proceed firing. In article 3 we find this aligns with the Biblical principle found in Exodus 21:20-21,  “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”  The verse tells us that when a master has some restraint then he should not be charged. My client did practice restrain choosing not to shoot the slave dead and only rendered he injured  Since he did not render her dead then he should not be punished. She was treated and left alive. Therefore the defendant can’t be held responsible.

In Article 5 “If a bull gores someone to death, it is to be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but its owner is not to be punished. But if the bull had been in the habit of attacking people and its owner had been warned, but did not keep it penned up—then if it gores someone to death, it is to be stoned, and its owner is to be put to death also.” This passage would implicate the prosecution and not my client. If the prosecution has knowledge of her propensity to run then he is at fault here. We will assume that is not true but it is further proof that Lydia was treated kindly.

Intotal the prosecution's fee of $10 for injury sustained to Lydia is absurd. There is no moral claim to this poor planter's money. He should be absolved of all crimes and have his $10 returned to him. 

Fredrick Douglas Game: James Henley Thornwell

 This is short biography and the opinion on slavery of James Henley Thornwell. He was Presbyterian minister and theologian. He was seemingly more compassionate than many other slave owners. He carries a theological perspective informed by his past experiences. He had a strong belief in the system of the south because it had worked for him in his early life.

“My name is James Henley Thornwell. I am a South Carolina Theologian who currently serves as chair of the Columbia Theological Seminary. I was born in 1812 and died in 1862. When I was 8 my father died and my family lacked financial support. My cousin quickly stepped in to teach me and provide in what ways he could be only a few shades richer than my family. Nevertheless times came when we no longer needed his support because a wealthy patron came along to support my education. He was the man who showed me what southerns did for those poorer than themselves. The southern system always worked in my eyes. He desired I become a Lawyer like himself but I tearfully informed that I was called in a different direction: ministry. I deeply love him for he had saved me, but I knew I had to follow my ordained mission. I became a student at South Carolina College where I studied theology intently seeking to understand all God had to offer. A few years after graduation I came back and served as President of that very university. I also served as a professor at many schools lecturing about the mystery of the universe. My latest job has been working as Chair on the Board of Columbia Theological Seminary. 

Outside of my University work I have done many work within the Presbyterian Church. I was the youngest ever moderator of the Presbyterian General assembly. Serving in this position was a great honor as I had much control over the debate held in those assemblies. Many times discussion occurred about separating the northern and southern churches to better appease everyone. I was a fan of this idea so much that when It did occur I was a leading voice in the Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States. I also founded the Presbyterian review in 1849. I say all of this to show my great love for the church.

I know you are really hear to pursue my policy on slavery. My position is intricate but fair. Beginning with the foundation the Bible does not speak out against slavery therefore it must be allowed Biblically. Even the father of our very faith, Abraham, had his own slaves. Does God change his mind about such a thing? Certainly not. Abolition is unBiblical based on this logic. I am no buffoon who believes that these Africans are not men; men can not be owned but their labor can be. I have always believed that after the work day is through that these men can not be controlled. They should be free to educate themselves, socialize, and find God. You cannot own a man for they all belong to God but his labor can be owned because that is of this world. I have a Profound belief in slavery and its divine institution and believe that God ordered society. To seek to dismantle that order is to sin against God. God brings good for the Africans in many ways. They would not have been saved from damnation if not for their Christian masters. I believe in predestination and that God would place us where he wants us. Slaves are placed under the the control of their master for a reason. God in his divine will looked after me after my father died. Why if God brought me up from despair would he not put slaves in their own place to protect and care for them. To be clear I am not arguing for the mistreatment of slaves because they are humans like us but that they have been assigned a position by God."

Slave owner hold a great opportunity to convert those who are under their care. They should raise up slaves in the teaching of the Lord. I myself have gone great lengths to ministry and care for my slaves. It has come at great cost but it is worth more souls in heaven. I would like to remind you of God's divine order and his power to raise those in the dirt to serve him. Thank you for all your kindness.”

South Carolina Historical Magazine

The Journal of Southern History

Bible Trivia

The Bible has been applied differently over time to the concept of slavery. Both sides have used religion as a weapon for themselves. The main religions argument for slavery was the lack of dissapporval for slavery in the Bible. The main religions argument against slavery was the Bibles kindness to slaves. The arguments very clearly contradict and each interpret scripture in their own manner. Both Abolitionist and Slavery owner had extreme religous ties. The two contradicting arguments present a different historical perspective of the Bible and its teaching applied.

Argument for Slavery

The Bible never out right disapproves of slavery therefore God has allowed it. The Bible goes as far as to say that slaves should obey their master because God has put them over the slave in Ephesians 6:5-8. Since Bible brings the concept of slavery and never confronts it as a sin must mean it is allowed in Christianity. Since God allowed Abraham to practice slavery in the Old Testament (Genesis 16:1) then should American not be allowed to. Abraham was God’s chosen man to give birth to his holy nation. Later Jesus came along and upheld the Old Testament. He never spoke negatively about slavery. One story commonly used to justify this point was the Story of Jesus and Centurion. Jesus was called on to heal the Centurion's servant who presumably was a slave (Matthew 8:5-7). The Roman Centurion was a conquer of Israel so most likely that servant was slave from a conquered people. Jesus therefore upheld slavery as a moral upright institution.

Slavery has been justified according to the Bible in both the New and Old Testament fairly directly. The two ways that slave owners approached the issue was either as a chance for ministry or opportunity to maintain control. The first would use the Great Commission as justification. It tells Christians to make “disciples of all nations'' (Matthew 28:18-20). A fear based conversion was a conversion in those days. In that way many slave owner could herald them selves as the savior of black people. They saw the slaves as people but also as trophies of their faith because they all went to church on Sunday. On the other hand you had slave master who would rule over their slaves using the Bible as justification. They would remind the slave that God told them to be loyal and serve their master like a God (Colossians 3:22-24).  It was a method of control using religion as a justification. The perspective saw slave very clearly as less than human and as a controllable population. Slaves would be seen same as land like a gift from God to these masters. Ultimately the Bible does not codem it therefore those who were proslaver took two approaches to slaves either it was a chance to minister or a power given to them by God.

Arguements Against Slavery:

Historically, Abrahamic religions have always had a deep connection with freedom from slavery. The famous Biblical stories of Moses leading God’s chosen people out of Egypt to escape slavery under the Pharaos immediately spring to mind when thinking about the concept. It can be said that freedom from forced servitude is a key building block in the Christian faith, held even into the first days of the American colonies by protestant settlers.

There are even numerous passages in the Bible condemning slavery, and outlining how followers of the Christian faith should treat escaped slaves with respect and dignity. Deuteronomy 23:16-17 (NIV) states: “Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them,” and “No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.” To give these liberties to slaves who have escaped their servitude very clearly indicates the view towards slaves in the Torah and the Old Testament of the Bible.

The ideals of all being free from the servitude of man under god are deeply ingrained into Protestant thought. Venerated Christian scholar St. Augustine viewed slavery as being a practice in direct defiance of God’s will (Augustine). John Wesley, founder of the Methodist church saw slavery as, “The execral sum of all villainies,” (Wesley). Despite the many aspersions of slavery cast by Christian scholars, the idea of the teachings of the bible being anti-slavery received large amounts of pushback in the United States. Charles Spurgeon, an English preacher, had some of his printed sermons burned by American citizens. His sermons were renowned for their spurning of slavery (Spurgeon).

Another point held towards the immorality of slavery in America was its cruelty in comparison to other nations with slave economies. The point was brought about by Thomas Jefferson that even the slaves of Rome were often held high in esteem, some notably being appointed to roles such as the tutor of the master’s children (Walker). The Roman treatment of slaves was a high standard in comparison to the diminutive, demeaning roles and reputation of slaves in the American south, where it was a novel rarity to have a slave who was even literate, much less formally educated.

The foundation of Christian-backed anti-slavery thought seems to be built on a few very integral principles: that man’s ownership of man is a creation of man’s will instead of God’s, that the treatment of slaves should be fair and just, and that they should be given the right to a life free of servitude. 

Conclusion

Ultimately, religion has been used throughout all of human history to justify innumerable practices that now seem barbaric to modern observers. Christianity in the antebellum United States ended up being the nexus point for a wide range of political, economic, and personal standings to be filtered through. Both sides of the argument over slavery found steady ground in the text of the Bible from which to argue their side, and both sides found their positions righteous enough to fight and die over.

Citations:

Ephsian 6:5-8

Colossians 3:22-24

Matthew 8:5-7

Titus 2:9-10

Genesis 16:1

Matthew 28:18-20

Obedient to God

JSTOR

Christian History Institute

JSTOR

Deuteronomy 

PBS

Spurgeon

Gone with the Wind (GWTW)

Gone with the Wind reveals a very different view of the Antebellum south than most modern Americans are used to. The movie, released in 1939, had a very different view of the Civil War and Antebellum period. Through the movie the South was romanticized and the north demonized. The South was shown as the height of civilization and simply trying to protect their way of life. Through the movie the confederacy was seen as a hopeless idealistic cause rather than the strong and spiteful cause that it was. The view is presented from the southern high society ignoring the rest of the much poorer populations struggle.

The slaves in the movie were protrayed as stupid and enjoying being subservient. The slave also appeared to have much more freedom of speech than what I would expect. Black people in the early 1900 were still seen as second class citizens and still suffered through intense personal and institutional racism. The depiction would not be seen as a problem because it made people feel better knowing that they enjoyed their subservient status.

What probaby bothered me the most was how the Old South was glorified despite its tradition of disenfranchising the poor. The Southern nobility hated anyone poorer than themselves. Many poor white folks barely scraped by and a majority never had or cared about slaves. They did not care because they did not have time to. Later these southerners became soldiers because they were told that they would lose their way of life when it was the rich and powerful who were going to lose their way of life. Ultimately they were taught to hate black people despite only having a small amount more prestige than their black brothers. They were not allowed to hate their superiors so they beat down those a little worse than them.

One of the few aspects that the movie got right was the complete devastation of the south. The south was completely ruined by the Union army. It not only hurt the wealthy landowner it also crippled the economy and stole the homes of the poor southern people. The period post-civil war was literally marked as Reconstruction because the south was so badly scarred by the flaming union. It has even been said that the south has only finally recovered from this devastation. The film notably shows the burning of Atlanta which was one of the few major cities in the south.

Gone with the Wind is a fascinating film because of the historical perspective and the current feeling in the time it was written. The Antebellum Period and Civil War have been interpreted in many ways over the years. The way they have been talked about slowly but dramatically changed post civil rights. Then more so in recent times with research into all sides of the story. Gone with the Wind is a historical piece of the cinema that sparked discussion to this day.

Gone with the Wind