When we dichotomize the 19th century ecclesiastical debate as “Southern “pro-slavery” and Northern “anti-slavery,” it must first be pointed out that these two titles are heavily nuanced in meaning. They did not mean that a virtuous North was committed to the welfare of blacks while an evil South delighted in their human bondage. Neither side believed that slavery abstractly considered was a positive good. Future CSA Vice-President Alexander Stephens made this clear when in 1845 he said in a speech:
“I am no defender of slavery in the abstract —liberty always had charms for me, and I would prefer to see all the sons and daughters of Adam’s family in the full enjoyment of all the rights set forth in the Declaration of American Independence….” (1)
Regarding Northern attitude, Lincoln’s own Secretary of State William Seward claimed for himself the title of “abolitionist” saying, “I early came to the conclusion that something was wrong with slavery and that determined me to be an abolitionist.” (2) Seward’s own words provide us a sampling of Northern abolitionist motive:
“How natural has it been to assume that the motive of those who have protested against the extension of slavery was an unnatural sympathy with the negro instead of what it always has really been, concern for the welfare of the white man.” (3)
The titles “pro-slavery” and “anti-slavery” did not carry then the same meaning as they do today. With that in mind, we will turn the focus on the 19th century ecclesiastical debate that divided Christians in America, and how each side used the Bible in debate. Our consideration here will be on prevailing sentiment rather than the anomalies.
Though it was the abolitionists that initiated the slavery debate, we must look first at the Southern position because it was the South, with its allegiance to a literal interpretation of Scripture, that focused the debate on the Bible. This was in response to Northern accusations that slavery was a “sin” and therefore needed to be ended immediately. The North was forced to develop its own arguments from the Bible in response to the South’s biblical defense of its moral character.
With the Southern commitment to a more conservative and literal interpretation of Scripture, where there is no explicit denunciation of slavery, we can see how Southern Christianity could sincerely begin to defend the institution. The Southern suspension of a conscience troubled by slavery in the early 19th century, evolving into a defense of the institution, was prompted by the threat posed by irresponsible abolitionist demands to both the South’s socio-economic stability and the welfare of the slaves. These threats, combined with the South’s discomfort with Northern doctrinal liberalism, aided it in placing its own anti-slavery sensitivities on the back burner. This about face was easy for Southerners because they believed slavery was not contrary to scriptural injunctions or long standing Christian tradition. The South did not abandon its conscientious discomfort with slavery, but it did source that discomfort in a manner that would uphold Southern honor and not allow itself to be labeled as “sinful.”
First, pro-slavery Southern Christians are to be commended for rejecting the racist theories of Northern ethnologists who claimed that “blacks originated as a separate species and therefore were not fully human.” (4) An Alabama Presbyterian called for the Southern church to reject the theory “that the negro is of a different species.” (5) This theory would have served the Southern argument had its intent been to defend slavery on racist grounds. But Southerners rejected the theory because of an interpretation of the creation account in the Bible where all humanity descended from a common source. This interpretation had long prompted Southern attempts to evangelize the slaves.
Southern society believed that certain authorities were ordained by God, namely: the Bible, the Church, and the Constitution. One Southerner, seeking to dissociate his defense of slavery from any self-serving interest, said he based his position on “the authority of the Scriptures, the consistency of the Church, and the morality of the American Constitution.” (6) The abolitionists’ attack was viewed as a challenge to these authorities established by God based on Enlightenment ideals whereby, “all laws which limited the freedom of men were pronounced moral evils.” (7) Southerners countered that the Christian abolitionist “theology of slavery” was based on a personal conviction of conscience informed by human reason rather than the authoritative will of God revealed in the Bible. This challenged abolitionists to defend their claim of the “sinfulness of slavery” on biblical grounds. Southerners were appalled when, to prove their conscience correct, Christian abolitionists:
“were driven to the necessity of denying that the apostles of Christ understood their duties in relation to Roman slavery; and that, by denying that the teachings of the apostles were a proper guide to us now on American slavery, they were laying the basis for the rejection of the Scriptures as infallible guides upon other moral questions, and thus promoting doctrines of infidel tendency.”(8)
Southern Christians saw slavery in the Old Testament being “God’s appointment” as a punishment for sin. (9) The Old Testament passage referred to the most as evidence that slavery was sanctioned by God is Genesis 9:25. Here is evidenced the Divine sanction of slavery as punishment for sin in three degrees: slavery to physical wants and needs; slavery to despotic government; slavery to other men. (10) A second argument drawn from this passage is the belief Canaan is the African race, and the curse of Noah was fulfilled in the enslavement of blacks in America. Using this argument was not mere eisegesis on the part of Southern Christians, as a highly respected Swiss church historian at that time, Phillip Schaff, supported this view. (11) The next often used Old Testament text often used was Genesis 14:14 where Abraham owned 318 bond servants. It was concluded that Abraham would not have involved himself in such a practice were it considered by God to be a sin. A final popular proof text was Exodus 20:17 where in the Ten Commandments one is taught to not covet a neighbor’s “manservant.” This demonstrated an acceptance of slavery, as did a list of passages where instruction was given to the Hebrews concerning the owning of slaves (Exodus 21:2-6; 21:20,21; 21:26,27; Lev 25:10; 39:40-46, 55; Deut 23:15,16).
Turning to the New Testament, it was interpreted by Southern Christians as bringing no change. “The institution of slavery was not abolished by the Gospel,” rather it was seen as compatible with it. (12) The Southern argument here was directly aimed at the charge that slavery was a “sin.” For “slaveholding does not appear in any catalogue of sins or disciplinable offences given us in the New Testament,” (13) yet “all the books of the New Testament were written and addressed to persons and churches in slaveholding states.” (14) It was pointed out that Jesus did not allude to it at all even though slavery practices were far worse in His day. The “piety of a man was never called in question by the apostles because he was a slaveholder, but slave-holders were freely admitted to membership in the primitive church;” forcing the conclusion that “either the doctrine of abolitionists is untrue, or the apostles did admit to the communion of His church men chargeable with the ‘greatest abomination of heathenism.’” (15) Proof texts cited here are: Eph 6:9; Col 4:1; I Tim 6:2; Phil 1:2. Commonly quoted was the story in Philemon where “Paul sent back a fugitive slave to his own master again, and assigned as his reason for so doing, that master’s right to the services of his slave.” (16) It was emphasized that the apostles frequently enjoined the duties of master and slave, enforcing these injunctions as Christian motives and “uniformly treating certain evils which they sought to correct as incidental evils, and not ‘part and parcel’ of slavery itself.” (17) Texts commonly cited here are: Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-25; 4:1; I Tim 6:1,2; Titus 2:9, 10; I Peter 2:18,19. Southern Christians believed that Northern abolitionists confused occasional or incidental sins occurring within slavery with the institution of slavery itself. The apostles condemned incidental sins, but never the institution itself. Rather, they sought to Christianize slavery. Southerners stressed that Paul, in I Timothy 6:1-3, says his doctrine is “according to Godliness and the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ…. and prohibits the teaching of any doctrine at variance with it.” (18) The application to Northern abolitionists here is obvious. Southerners charged them with being creatures of “emotion and impulse…. driven about by every wind of doctrine” as they invent for themselves a “higher law (subjective conscience) than Holy Scriptures” and thus encourage “the rise and spread of Universalism, Millerism, Pantheism. Mormonism, and Spiritualism.” (19) Southerners also turned to the New Testament when Northern Christians claimed slavery created an “aristocratic class” antithetical to democratic ideals. They pointed out that the Bible “treats the distinctions which slavery creates as matters of very little importance in so far as the interests of the Christian life are concerned.” (20) Texts cited are: Gal 3:28; I Cor 12:13; 7:20,21; Col 3:11.
It is difficult to account for the conservative nature of religion in the South. One historian says that slavery itself “made the slaveholders more practical, responsible, and even moral, since they were concerned with supporting and caring for large numbers of people….” (21) A mid-nineteenth century writer concurs saying that it was Southern religion “embracing both blacks and whites” that produced a “proper discipline” and “general morality” which “stands unrivaled in the history of the country.” (22) Conservative family traditions were preserved more readily in an agricultural society where families remained together on the farm and respect for authority was ingrained. Fidelity to authority was a habit of life in the South and maintained its authoritarian structure of religion, where in the North such practice was not as habitual.
It must be emphasized that in defending its honor, socio-cultural stability, and slaves from the irresponsible demands of Northern abolitionists for “immediate emancipation,” the Southern Christian did not desire the perpetuation of slavery. Southern Christians who defended their honor and the morality of slavery on biblical grounds, hoped that in due time and humane manner slavery would be peacefully abolished. Enlightenment ideals had their effect on the Southern conscience, but this was yet governed by practical concerns and a biblical authority which demanded a humane outcome for the slaves. The ideological fanaticism sweeping the North was unchecked by a concern for authority or practical outcome. And so a bloodbath was the outcome for both blacks and whites in mid-19th century America.
*************************************************************
Footnotes
(1) Speech of Mr. Stephens of Georgia on the Joint Resolution for the Annexation of Texas: Delivered in the House of Representatives, January 25, 1845
(2) William H. Seward, “Autobiography of William H Seward from 1801 to 1834,” (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1877), pg. 28
(3) From a New York Times article, 9/5/1860, titled: “The Presidential Canvass; Slavery and Party Spirit. Important Speech of Senator Seward at Detroit “The Crises and its Requirements. Duty of Republicans. An Immense Demonstration – Immense Enthusiasm”
(4) Thomas V. Peterson, “Ham and Japeth: The Mythic World of Whites in the Antebellum South.” (Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 1978), p. 4
(5) Fred A. Ross, “Slavery Ordained of God.” (New York: Negro University Press, 1859 reprinted 1869), p. 6
(6) John H. Hopkins, “View of Slavery.” (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1864, reprinted 1969), p. 3
(7) David Christy, “Pulpit Politics.” (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1862 reprinted 1969), p. 72
(8) op. cit., David Christy, p. 621; see also p. 84f
(9) George D. Armstrong, “The Christian Doctrine of Slavery.” (New York: Negro University Press, 1857 reprinted 1969) p. 110
(10) ibid., p. 112
(11) Phillip Schaff, “Slavery and the Bible: A Tract for the times.” (Chambersburg, Pa.: M. Kieffer and Co., 1861), p. 7
(12) op. cit., John Hopkins, p. 13
(13) ibid., p. 12
(14) op. cit., George D. Armstrong, p. 9
(15) J. Blanchard and N. L. Rice, “A Debate on Slavery.” (Cincinnati: Wm. H. Moore and Co., 1846), pp. 378 – 379
(16) op. cit., Geo. D. Armstrong, p. 102
(17) ibid., pp. 102 – 103
(18) ibid., p. 75
(19) op. cit., John Hopkins, pp. 16, 18, 47, 48
(20) op. cit., Geo. D. Armstrong, p. 65
(21) op. cit., Thomas Peterson, pp. 15 – 16
(22) William A. Smith, “Lectures on the Philosophy and Practice of Slavery.” (Nashville, TN.: Stevens and Owens, 1857), p. 328
Kings pushed slavery on the world. European kings had trade agreements with African kings…in between these royals were plenty of bankers, lawyers, inspectors and vendors…lots of vendors.
The US populace inherited the royals issues…and we dealt with it…in 1860, there were 4 million THOUSAND DOLLAR BILLS walking the cotton and tobacco fields of the US…and no one knew what to do with all this wealth.
The northern congress freed a few thousand Washington, DC slaves in 1862 for 300 bucks per head. These slaves were bought from NORTHERNERS AND THEIR ALLIES…that’s what the north thought about slavery…THEY LEFT 500,000 SLAVES WORKING NORTHERN FIELDS UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS PASSED…and if the north had had its way, the CORWIN AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
the numerous mixed race people by the 1800s should have been a clear indication that the negro wasn’t a different species.
Everybody immediately equates the condition of slavery with blacks. But originally, the slaves in the New World were WHITE, not black! To be against slavery is acknowledged today to be solely involved with black slavery, a condition that began in Africa by Africans. Indeed, the wealthiest man in the world was a black King whose wealth arose from waging war on fellow blacks and selling the victims of that war into slavery! Indeed, the ENTIRE ECONOMY of Africa was slavery! So the “slavery” thing only BECAME “black” when there were no more white slaves from ENGLAND.
Both Virginia and North Carolina petitioned the King to stop sending blacks to the colonies, but he refused! So one cannot blame the South for the issue. As well, the revolution in Haiti frightened Southerners about servile insurrection (preached by Northern abolitionists!) and led to stricter measures against the existing slaves in the South such as not educating them to BE free should they be emancipated legally. Finally, whites in the North equated Southern whites WITH blacks. One northern newspaper reported the election of Thomas Jefferson as America’s first “black” President because he owned slaves. The treatment of blacks in the North was totally hostile while Southern whites and blacks had amicable relationships even master to slave and vice versa.
There is so much more to this issue than either slavery or race but today it is convenient to make it a white vs. black issue while at the time of Fort Sumter, the men who owned the most slaves in South Carolina was a black former slave! Who writes about that? No one.
The largest slave owner in South Carolina in 1860 was the Joseph Ward estate with over 1100 slaves. Ward died in 1853 and his estate continued to hold his slaves. There were other families that owned over 500 slaves in South Carolina.
The slave owner you reference, William Ellison, owned about 70 slaves in 1860. He was the largest BLACK slave owner in the State. There were over 100 black slave owners in South Carolina on the eve of the War.
“There is so much more to this issue than either slavery or race but today it is convenient to make it a white vs. black issue while at the time of Fort Sumter, the men who owned the most slaves in South Carolina was a black former slave! Who writes about that? No one.”
I doubt there will ever be a time and/or place to reach certain people. The people who fail to concede what is before them, shining like a bright light in footnotes and sources of history, are dishonest, conceded, selfish and will always be pretentious. They don’t realize that those presenting facts and figures to them are not trying to compete with them for stardom but have an honest belief in trying to reveal truth regardless of what it reveals.
Or maybe they do realize it, but are, I have finally concluded, just the flotsam and jetsam of mental and emotional human trash!
Though the article herein is of the historical subject of slavery, the immediate brouhaha concerning Donald Trump’s “trial” is a sad revelation of the kind of gutter trash we are trying to make understand the truth of slavery and its record.
And the gutter is filled with those on both sides of the street, north and south., whether the vehicle is signaling a right turn or a left turn.
Deo Vindice: If it is His will. Dang, I hope so
“The Old Testament passage referred to the most as evidence that slavery was sanctioned by God is Genesis 9:25. The next often used Old Testament text often used was Genesis 14:14 where Abraham owned 318 bond servants.
..list of passages where instruction was given to the Hebrews concerning the owning of slaves (Exodus 21:2-6; 21:20,21; 21:26,27; Lev 25:10; 39:40-46, 55; Deut 23:15,16).”
Three points –
1) The vast majority of Southerners – and future soldiers – at the outset of the Civil War did not own any enslaved persons of any race, and were often economically disadvantaged by slavery – as with the free range slavery / labor speculation of Northern Industrialism – They are fighting because they are being invaded.
2) All Societies eventually get hijacked by cooperating elites – either as monarchs, political parties, Guilds or Aristocracies, that makes up excuses to justify their own misconduct, which always comport with their own profit/financial gain. This is the case for the Confederacy and the US.
3) The ‘Old Testament’ was effectively the equivalent of a test, in which the answers only became available to you (long) after the results of your ‘performance’ had already been assessed. Until a century or so ago, no one knew that Sumeria ever existed.
It was really not until approx the mid -1950’s that any meaningful written information was available outside Academia concerning the earliest cultures of the middle east, because we could not read it. (‘Hebrews’ are not one of the earliest cultures, btw, and they are actually not a culture at all originally.)
The Habiru / “Hebrew” exist across a massive, vast swath of territories, from Iran to the Levant, as well as in Asia Minor, and this is simply a general descriptor for people who are transient / migratory and move about is search of food/fodder/water. This would have been almost everyone before urbanization.
There is a cuneiform record of I believe Ashurbanipal (note theophoric naming for god ‘Assur’ as with ‘Isra-El’) going out on a Lion Hunt during a military campaign, and finding no Lions, he instead starts killing masses of Habiru who were encamped across the deserts, to the point that the chronicler notes that the King grew ‘bored’ or ‘tired’.
Probably one of the more important observations of the HBRW Bible is that the writers using this term wrongly assume that it is a related tribe, instead of an economic class, indicating that it is edited or written long after the fact. What was taking place at that time was the formerly free, migratory human population were being subjugated / squeezed by large, powerful empires, who saw them as either potential slaves, abuse victims, or a threat.
When an abusive elite class can impose its will on you, human nature tends to emulate this conduct, and reflect / justify it, as the will of a greater power – especially if you plan to end up in the abusive elite class. Anyone exposed to this belief structure is going to perpetuate it, as long as it is profitable to them to do so, which is why we are in modern times consulting stories that come to us via lunatic tyrants slaughtering humans on quixotic Lion hunts across the deserts of Assyria, millennia ago.
“The ‘Old Testament’ was effectively the equivalent of a test, in which the answers only became available to you (long) after the results of your ‘performance’ had already been assessed. Until a century or so ago, no one knew that Sumeria ever existed.”
One can believe what they want about the Bible, in this case the O.T., but, the O.T. “was”,” “a test?” The O.T. claim’s to be the Creator’s word’s. See Exodus 24:4. It contains the doctrine of the creation. Though, the point of Genesis 1 and 2 is not so much about the creation, but rather God’s purpose in the earth. There are more things about the creation in Job. The O.T. is about the fall of man, then the forming of nations, and then God letting the nations go there own way by Genesis 12. See Romans 1. Then God made His own nation, Israel. The purpose of Israel was to demonstrate to all the nations of the world what a nation truly under God looks like. In this, God didn’t fail, but Israel did. The O.T. “a test?” No. However, there were test’s in the O.T. Test’s of Israel’s faith. Anyway, the O.T. from Genesis 12 through midway of the book of Acts concerns God’s program with Israel.
“(‘Hebrews’ are not one of the earliest cultures, btw, and they are actually not a culture at all originally.)”
“The Habiru / “Hebrew” exist across a massive, vast swath of territories, from Iran to the Levant, as well as in Asia Minor, and this is simply a general descriptor for people who are transient / migratory and move about is search of food/fodder/water.”
The word “Hebrew” first occurs in Genesis 14:13. That was Abram (Abraham). That the Hebrews are not one of the earliest cultures doesn’t matter. Those cultures, or nations, didn’t want God of the O.T., so, again, God let them go (Rom. 1). Hebrew(s) is not “…a descriptor for people who are transient.” However, God’s people, Israel, were scattered across the earth due to God’s punishment of them beginning with the Syrian – Babylonian captivity. That was part of the five courses of punishment for Israel laid out in Leviticus 26. See Leviticus 26:33. The Syrian – Babylonian captivity began the fifth course of chastisement of Israel. Then began “the times of the Gentiles.”
Interesting article, Mr. O’Barr. Thank you.
“(10) A second argument drawn from this passage is the belief Canaan is the African race, and the curse of Noah was fulfilled in the enslavement of blacks in America. Using this argument was not mere eisegesis on the part of Southern Christians, as a highly respected Swiss church historian at that time, Phillip Schaff, supported this view.”
For what it’s worth, a Christian teacher the late Bob Barlowe, in his book, “The Origin of the Races,” taught, based on his study of the scriptures, that the races began, or was formed, at the tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Canaan was already living by then. However, it was Ham’s descendants who became the black race.
As far as Canaan, and what some Southern Christian ministers taught about Canaan, he was cursed. That curse was to be visited, or punished, by Joshua and Israel when they went to take their land given to them by God. Canaan was occupying that land; they were to be wiped out by Israel. But only Canaan, not the entirety of Ham’s descendants. So, the curse just involved Israel, their land, and the Canaanites who occupied a certain portion of it, The issue was wiping them out. See Joshua 17:13. Surviving Canaanites and any descendants who might have become slaves, became slaves but not due to the curse. The curse was not that they’d be slaves, but that they’d be driven out of Israel’s land. Of course they weren’t. That’s my understanding and what I think is correct.