Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
It's the people's attitude and mentalities that have to change before law changes. Laws that stem from the values of the people are easier to enforce. Slavery was very, very common for thousands of years until questioned during the Enlightenment. It wasn't just Christians...it was just accepted by most. It died out in most places with the stroke of a pen. It would have died out eventually among the southern plantation owners too. That was the direction things were moving in.
Until then, there would have been no possibility of even having the new national govt—a Constitutional republic, because some of the minds at the original convention were not ready to let go of it. There was a compromise to get the new govt. So, this argument is sorta bogus, because essentially it's tantamount to saying we should have remained under the Articles of Confederation. In a way, I do think we would have been better off in the sense we'd be a freer people because the anti-Federalists turned out to be correct. However, the slavery point, is overplayed as a point as it was dying out anyway. Though, today, it's returning by making us all slaves to the state.
That still supports my point. It shows that our laws and our moral stances changed over time without divine influence. Man changed its own laws because man realized its previous beliefs were wrong. Despite the fact that the Bible supported or even encouraged the practices.