[elwin]

I'm not sure this is what the parent meant, but in America at least, the antislavery movement was part of a broad social reform movement which was strongly tied to the popular Christianity of the day. For example, see the connections between Charles Finney (a prominent theologian) and Oberlin College (one of the first integrated universities). Also, look up the full lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic- it sounds like nonsense outside of the context of 19th century revivalism. The reform movement and its consequences make an interesting historical topic.

[prodigal_erik]

Strangely, there were Christians on both sides of the issue, all claiming doctrinal support for their positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Chri...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Oppo...

[anamax]

> Strangely, there were Christians on both sides of the issue

I wonder if that's why I wrote: "Yes, some religions advocated and supported slavery"

The existence of religious slavery supporters does not refute the claim was that religious people ended slavery.

As I put it the first time: "[the religious supporters of slavery] lost to [religious opponents]."

[prodigal_erik]

I found it misleading to praise religion for motivating the winners but not blame religion (in fact almost all of the very same denominations) for also motivating the losers. Also interesting because I still can't imagine how people used the same sources but got such wildly different answers.

[anamax]

> found it misleading to praise religion for motivating the winners but not blame religion (in fact almost all of the very same denominations) for also motivating the losers.

My comment was about what caused the change, and the losers didn't do that.

Why do you think that these losers deserve as much attention as these winners? Or, is this a general rule?

In other news, the folks pushing 3/5 person (or less) rule were the anti-slavery folks while the slave states wanted slaves counted just like everyone else. (That rule was part of how congressional representation was determined. The "not slave" states were trying to minimize the representation of the slave states and the slave states were trying to maximize their representation.) So, anyone who brings it up as evidence of "not valuing them as people" is either dishonest or ignorant....

[nate_meurer]

Yes, and support for slavery was also strongly tied to the popular Christianity of the day.

The fact that religion so permeated debates in those times makes it easy for us to cherry-pick people and places to support our positions (this applies to me as much as you).

[anamax]

> Yes, and support for slavery was also strongly tied to the popular Christianity of the day.

I didn't claim otherwise.

My comment was solely about the winners.

FWIW, I think that the winners are more important than the losers.