Bible vs. Bible

[matthew mckeon]

Gentlemen,
Are we actually quoting the Bible to justify/criticize slavery? In the 21st century? Let's stick to the Civil War era, or I will be forced to unleased the terrible force of my logic, or start deleting.

 

[GlenAlan Graham]

The rich people in the North did not want slavery because they made little money off of it and gained no political power from it.

Ummm. . . the Boston and Rhode Island ship owners and captains ("rich people in the North") made a whole lot of money off transporting captured Africans in their ships across the Atlantic to sell as slaves. And doubtless these slave-ship owners and captains from New England had political power thanks to the money they gained.

 

[James B White]

Ummm. . . the Boston and Rhode Island ship owners and captains ("rich people in the North") made a whole lot of money off transporting captured Africans in their ships across the Atlantic to sell as slaves. And doubtless these slave-ship owners and captains from New England had political power thanks to the money they gained.

By the 1830s-40s, though, there was no more profit to be made from the middle passage, except for a little undercover smuggling, so northerners in general were comfortable condemning slavery as a sin, as shown by the splits in several Protestant denominations over the topic, for example.

That brings up the question, though... When there was profit in bringing slaves from Africa in the 18th century, did northerners support the African slave trade using the Bible? What sort of arguments did they make? Were they the same arguments as southerners (continued?) to use in the mid 19th century? I haven't studied either slavery or religion enough in the 18th century to know.

 

[dvrmte]

I believe your basic premise is correct, at least for the leadership of the secessionist movement. Calhoun, found it necessary to refute the reasoning of his idol Jefferson for the writing of the DoI.
It was obvious to Calhoun, if not always to Jefferson, that all Men were not created Free or equal.

All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman... Plato

Yet if one reads Plato's Republic, they'll understand he meant equal before the Creator only. IMO, the New Testament is more of an offshoot of Plato and the early Greek philosophers than the Old Testament or Judaism.

 

[matthew mckeon]

By the 1830s-40s, though, there was no more profit to be made from the middle passage, except for a little undercover smuggling, so northerners in general were comfortable condemning slavery as a sin, as shown by the splits in several Protestant denominations over the topic, for example.

That brings up the question, though... When there was profit in bringing slaves from Africa in the 18th century, did northerners support the African slave trade using the Bible? What sort of arguments did they make? Were they the same arguments as southerners (continued?) to use in the mid 19th century? I haven't studied either slavery or religion enough in the 18th century to know.

The most famous slave ship captain in history was John Newton, better known as the author of "Amazing Grace." He found his faith incompatible with his career, and would become an anti slavery activist. He was blind, but then he saw.
The rest of that sorry crew didn't need the Bible to justify a very profitable business.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Ummm. . . the Boston and Rhode Island ship owners and captains ("rich people in the North") made a whole lot of money off transporting captured Africans in their ships across the Atlantic to sell as slaves. And doubtless these slave-ship owners and captains from New England had political power thanks to the money they gained.

Two good books about this are Eric Foner's recent history of the underground railroad, which details local officials that winked at escaped slave kidnappers and ships that outfitted for the slave trade. The second is "Hanging Captain Gordon." Gordon born in Portland, Maine, but was outfitted in New York. The Atlantic slave trade was considered piracy. Gordon was captured by the US Navy and brought to New York City for trial. No slave captain had ever suffered the death penalty, and Gordon may have felt confident that he would soon be free. However with Lincoln's election, the attitude of the federal courts considerably hardened. Gordon was executed.

 

[dvrmte]

By the 1830s-40s, though, there was no more profit to be made from the middle passage, except for a little undercover smuggling, so northerners in general were comfortable condemning slavery as a sin, as shown by the splits in several Protestant denominations over the topic, for example.

That brings up the question, though... When there was profit in bringing slaves from Africa in the 18th century, did northerners support the African slave trade using the Bible? What sort of arguments did they make? Were they the same arguments as southerners (continued?) to use in the mid 19th century? I haven't studied either slavery or religion enough in the 18th century to know.

The early Puritans justified enslaving enemies captured in war, so they enslaved Indians. Then they somehow justified swapping Indian slaves for African slaves.

The only justification I can think of for bringing Africans to the New World is that they were buying people already enslaved.

George Whitefield, known for sparking the Great Awakening, urged the legalization of slavery in the Georgia colony:

From Wiki-

As for the lawfulness of keeping slaves, I have no doubt, since I hear of some that were bought with Abraham's money, and some that were born in his house.—And I cannot help thinking, that some of those servants mentioned by the Apostles in their epistles, were or had been slaves. It is plain, that the Gibeonites were doomed to perpetual slavery, and though liberty is a sweet thing to such as are born free, yet to those who never knew the sweets of it, slavery perhaps may not be so irksome. However this be, it is plain to a demonstration, that hot countries cannot be cultivated without negroes. What a flourishing country might Georgia have been, had the use of them been permitted years ago? How many white people have been destroyed for want of them, and how many thousands of pounds spent to no purpose at all? Had Mr Henry been in America, I believe he would have seen the lawfulness and necessity of having negroes there. And though it is true, that they are brought in a wrong way from their own country, and it is a trade not to be approved of, yet as it will be carried on whether we will or not; I should think myself highly favoured if I could purchase a good number of them, in order to make their lives comfortable, and lay a foundation for breeding up their posterity in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. You know, dear Sir, that I had no hand in bringing them into Georgia; though my judgement was for it, and so much money was yearly spent to no purpose, and I was strongly importuned thereto, yet I would not have a negro upon my plantation, till the use of them was publicly allowed in the colony. Now this is done, dear Sir, let us reason no more about it, but diligently improve the present opportunity for their instruction. The trustees favour it, and we may never have a like prospect. It rejoiced my soul, to hear that one of my poor negroes in Carolina was made a brother in Christ. How know we but we may have many such instances in Georgia ere it be long?[

 

[Kenneth Almquist]

In Appeal to Christian Women of the South (1836), Angelina Emily Grimke argues the Biblical case on pages 3 through 16. Some of the major arguments:

• In Genesis, God gives man dominion over the earth, the fishes, the beasts of the field, etc., but not over his fellow man. This is why Southerners worry about slave rebellion, but not "rebellion of the beasts of the field."
• Slavery as practices by the ancient Hebrews is not comparable to slavery as practices in the South. This is a long argument, but one of the strongest points, if accurate, is that all slaves were freed in the year of the Jubilee (which came every 50 years). This rebuts the argument that Jesus didn't condemn slavery. He never had occasion to comment on a system of slavery like that practiced in the American South.
• Grimke also disputes that Paul accepts slavery as practiced in the South, writing for example that if Paul "thought it sinful even to threaten servants, surely he must have thought it sinful to flog and to beat them with sticks and paddles."
• The Golden Rule says, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." That means that unless you would be willing to be a slave yourself, or have your child made into a slave, you should not be a slaveholder yourself.

There is one argument that is primarily directed at Northerners, and that is that Deuteronomy 23:15-16 prohibits the return of fugitive slaves.

 

[John Hartwell]

The early Puritans justified enslaving enemies captured in war, so they enslaved Indians. Then they somehow justified swapping Indian slaves for African slaves.
The only justification I can think of for bringing Africans to the New World is that they were buying people already enslaved.
George Whitefield, known for sparking the Great Awakening, urged the legalization of slavery in the Georgia colony:
[

In his preface to the 1889, The narrative of Bethany Veney, a slave woman, Methodist Bishop W. F. Malalieu acknowledges this, and goes on to predict:

"The day is coming when slaveholders and their descendants will no more think of boasting of the fact, or even mentioning it, than the grandchildren of the slave-stealers and pirates of Newport, and other Northern seaports, now think of priding themselves on the unspeakable villany of their ancestors."

And for some, we still wait.

jno

 

[YankeeDoodle]

Did the Bible specify that slavery must be based only on the skin color of the person? Does the Bible anywhere ban owning white slaves? Unless I am mistaken there were still pagans and unbelievers in some areas of Europe in 1494.

I missed the point of this? Can you explain?

 

[YankeeDoodle]

First of all, you're quoting from the Old Testament, not the New. The old covenant laws were made obsolete.

Hebrew 8:13
When God speaks of a "new" covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear.

Your first quote would be applicable to the Africans that captured and sold people, and those that transported them. That was considered sinful in the eyes of most Southerners.

Your Deuteronomy quote is explained by the following:

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/23-15.htm
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which has escaped from his master unto thee—evidently a servant of the Canaanites or some of the neighboring people, who was driven by tyrannical oppression, or induced, with a view of embracing the true religion, to take refuge in Israel.

And another explanation of the same:
A slave that had escaped from his master was not to be given up, but allowed to dwell in the land, in whatever part he might choose. The reference is to a foreign slave who had fled from the harsh treatment of his master to seek refuge in Israel, as is evident from the expression, בְאַחַד שְׁעָרֵיך, "in one of thy gates," i.e. in any part of thy land. Onkelos, עֲבִד עַמְמִין, "a slave of the Gentiles." His master; the word used is the plural adonim, masters. The use of this for a human master or lord is peculiar to the Pentateuch.

The last two need no explanation, they were laws made obsolete by Christ.

So the ten commandments are obsolete?

 

[major bill]

I missed the point of this? Can you explain?

It questions the concept that the Bible and/or pope allows whites to have black slaves, but forbids everyone from owning white slaves. The Bible does not appear to specify the race of who can be a slave and pope allowed non believers to be enslaved forever but again did not specify race. The Bible or pope could have specified blacks, but neither did so I have to wonder where the concept that only blacks could be slaves comes from.

Perhaps Northern Bible scholars were right that no one can own a slave. Perhaps the Southerns Bible scholars were right that the Bible allowed slavery. I simply have not been shown where in the Bible white slaves are forbidden, but black slaves allowed.

 

[dvrmte]

So the ten commandments are obsolete?

No, except maybe for keeping the seventh day Sabbath, as all the rest were repeated in the New Testament.

 

[dvrmte]

I simply have not been shown where in the Bible white slaves are forbidden, but black slaves allowed.

And you won't. The Curse of Ham argument according to Prof. Robert Dabney was mainly a straw man argument that abolitionists enjoyed beating down, as if it was the only Biblical justification.

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/eBooks/BOOKS/Dabney/A Defense of Virginia Dabney.pdf
And our opponents, with a treachery fully equal to the folly of our unwise advocates, usually represent this as nearly the whole amount, and the fair exemplar, of our biblical argument. Such is not the use we design to make of this important piece of history.

 

[dvrmte]

There is one argument that is primarily directed at Northerners, and that is that Deuteronomy 23:15-16 prohibits the return of fugitive slaves.

According to every interpretation I've seen, modern or antebellum, that isn't the true meaning.

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mhm/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=023
I. The land of Israel is here made a sanctuary, or city of refuge, for servants that were wronged and abused by their masters, and fled thither for shelter from the neighbouring countries, Deuteronomy 23:15,16. We cannot suppose that they were hereby obliged to give entertainment to all the unprincipled men that ran from service Israel needed not (as Rome at first did) to be thus peopled. But, 1. They must not deliver up the trembling servant to his enraged master, till upon trial it appeared that the servant has wronged his master and was justly liable to punishment. Note, It is an honourable thing to shelter and protect the weak, provided they be not wicked. God allows his people to patronise the oppressed. The angel bid Hagar return to her mistress, and Paul sent Onesimus back to his master Philemon, because they had neither of them any cause to go away, nor was either of them exposed to any danger in returning. But the servant here is supposed to escape, that is, to run for his life, to the people of Israel, of whom he had heard (as Benhadad of the kings of Israel, 1 Kings 20:31) that they were a merciful people, to save himself from the fury of a tyrant and in that case to deliver him up is to throw a lamb into the mouth of a lion. 2. If it appeared that the servant was abused, they must not only protect him, but, supposing him willing to embrace their religion, they must give him all the encouragement that might be to settle among them. Care is taken both that he should not be imposed up on in the place of his settlement--let it be that which he shall choose and where it liketh him best, and that he should not exchange one hard master for many--thou shalt not oppress him. Thus would he soon find a comfortable difference between the land of Israel and other lands, and would choose it to be his rest for ever. Note, Proselytes and converts to the truth should be treated with particular tenderness, that they may have no temptation to return.

http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/old_testament_studies/VOL03OT/VOL03OT_23.html
The central interpretive question is the nationality of a slave and of his master. To whom does this exactly refer? This must refer to a foreign slave or a foreign slave-master (or both). This does clearly show Israel's understanding that a slave is more than an animated tool. YHWH allows servitude under certain restrictions and limits, but He also cares for the powerless, helpless, and vulnerable!

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/23-15.htm
This is not to be understood universally, as if all servants that flee from their masters, though without any sufficient cause or colour of justice, might be detained from them by any person to whom they fled for refuge, for this is apparently contrary to all the laws of religion, and justice, and charity, and would open a door to infinite disorders and mischiefs

 

[Kenneth Almquist]

The Bible does not appear to specify the race of who can be a slave and pope allowed non believers to be enslaved forever but again did not specify race. The Bible or pope could have specified blacks, but neither did so I have to wonder where the concept that only blacks could be slaves comes from.

I think that for the most part, the people citing Biblical passages in favor of slavery were pushing back against abolitionists who claimed that slavery was wrong. So they were mainly trying to establish that slavery wasn't wrong in general, and didn't see any need to address nuances such as whether it was only moral to enslave people of particular races.

In his Cornerstone speech, Stephens justifies Negro slavery as "in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator," but this is a natural law argument rather than a Biblical argument. He doesn't cite the Bible in defense of his position any more than Jefferson did when he wrote that, "all men are created equal."

With regard to Genesis 9:25, there is no Biblical basis for the belief that Ham (or his son Canaan) was black, according to Wikipedia.

 

[ForeverFree]

It questions the concept that the Bible and/or pope allows whites to have black slaves, but forbids everyone from owning white slaves. The Bible does not appear to specify the race of who can be a slave and pope allowed non believers to be enslaved forever but again did not specify race. The Bible or pope could have specified blacks, but neither did so I have to wonder where the concept that only blacks could be slaves comes from.

Perhaps Northern Bible scholars were right that no one can own a slave. Perhaps the Southerns Bible scholars were right that the Bible allowed slavery. I simply have not been shown where in the Bible white slaves are forbidden, but black slaves allowed.

I have often made the point that in fact, white southerners believed that slavery was wrong... when it came to enslaving them. That is, they did not believe it was right to enslave white people. The idea that slavery is wrong, unless we're talking about enslaving negroes, seems to be a post-biblical notion.

- Alan

 

[ForeverFree]

No, the buyers, or those forced(colonists) to use that source of labor, equally sinned. Later generations defended the continuance based on the greater good of society, both the slave and the free.

OK, I get it, I think.

It was a sin to bring slaves to America and use them as slave laborers.

But it was not a sin to keep the descendants of those stolen in slavery. In fact, "religion" had nothing to do with it, it was a matter of whites determining how best society should be, for themselves.

- Alan

 

[ole]

Fluff. The Gospel had nothing to do with slavery in America. The words can be interpreted to mean anything one likes to believe. Pray with venomous snakes? Sure. Peyote? OK. Polygamy? Why not? James Jones? Could he have had a good idea?

One tends to find in the Bible whatever one's justification needs.

 

[ForeverFree]

Of course we are talking the Bible vs the Bible. But this is what the Supreme court said in the Dred Scott decision:

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.​

SCOTUS didn't quote the Bible. They said that negroes were of an inferior order that could "justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for (the white man's) benefit."

Some would argue that the Bible was used to reinforce what many whites already believed.

- Alan