Dabney and Defense

[chrisswindham]

Is anyone familiar with R.L. Dabneys book "A defense of Virginia and the south"?
If so what's your take on it?

 

[brass napoleon]

Not familiar with the book itself, but I know Dabney had absolutely no compunctions about grossly twisting facts to fit his uber-racist, pro-slavery agenda.

 

[Rebforever]

Is anyone familiar with R.L. Dabneys book "A defense of Virginia and the south"?
If so what's your take on it?

He was A Presbyterian Minister on the staff of General 'Stonewall' Jackson. I would love to had been around that campfire!
Here is a website that will get you started.

He taught at Presbyterian College in Richmond and later on, was called to serve to the Tingling Spring Presbyterian Church in Fishesrville, Virginia in The Shenandoah Valley. A friend of mine recently bought the rock home he built with his own hands about 3 miles from Tinkling Spring Church.

He tells one what he thinks for sure.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Dabney - Systematic Theology.pdf

 

[chrisswindham]

Rebforever, Thanks. I have a copy of Dabneys S.T. and I've gone through most of his defense of Virginia. It has been an interesting read. He makes both a historical and theological case for his position.

What has interested me the most at this point is the historical points he makes. Namely, the confederate states were the first states to outlaw the importation of slaves and it was in their constitution; the North didn't free a great portion of their slaves but simply sold them to the South due (pre abolition); abolitionists arguments at the time were not historically grounded and they aimed at defacing the South world wide....to name a few.

I haven't researched the accuracy of these claims but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't true and expelled from current history books.

 

[Rebforever]

Well, old Stonewall turned the Army over to Dabney to move it to Richmond when he was called to Richmond to meet with Lee.
No one knows why that old crusty Presbyterian did such a thing but needless to say, the officers didn't think much of it.

 

[CSA Today]

Is anyone familiar with R.L. Dabneys book "A defense of Virginia and the south"?
If so what's your take on it?

I have a copy.

 

[Old Baldy]

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/eBooks/BOOKS/Dabney/A Defense of Virginia Dabney.pdf

 

[Old Baldy]

I am starting to read it. I am not sure if there are forum rules for Civil War Theological discussions, but here are a few quotes from the treatise that I found interesting for possible discussion. I included the argument for the Curse of Canaan because I had never before seen it fully explained. Amazing nonsense in my humble opinion.

"So that the presence of the major part of the four millions of Africans now in America, is due to New England."

"But one more fact remains: When the late Confederate Government adopted a constitution, although it was composed exclusively of slaveholding States, it voluntarily did what the United States has never done: it placed an absolute prohibition of the foreign slave trade in its organic law."

"That Northern emancipation was prompted by no consideration for the supposed rights of Africans, but by regard to their own interests, is evinced by many facts. Of these, perhaps the most general and striking is the persistent neglect of the welfare of their emancipated slaves; the refusal to give them equal civic rights, until they found a motive for doing so in malice against the South; and the shocking decadence, vice and misery to which a nominal liberty, according to the testimony of Northern writers, has consigned their wretched free blacks."

Curse of Canaan
"These descendants were included in the punishment of their wicked progenitors on that well known principle of God's providence, which "visits the sin of the fathers upon the children," and this again is explained by the fact, that depraved parents will naturally rear depraved children, unless God interfere by a grace to which they have no claim; so that not only punishment, but the sinfulness, becomes hereditary. Doubtless God's sentence, here pronounced by Noah, was based on his foresight of the fact, that Ham's posterity, like their father, would be peculiarly degraded in morals; as actual history testifies of them, so far as its voice extends."

"[The curse of Canaan] does in the first place, what all secular history and speculations fail to do: it gives us the origin of domestic slavery. And we find that it was appointed by God as the punishment of, and remedy for (nearly all God's providential chastisements are also remedial) the peculiar moral degradation of a part of the race. If one case is found where God has authorized domestic slavery, the principle is settled, that it cannot necessarily be sin in itself."

"Whatever may have been the leniency of the system, the

state of the Gentile slaves showed the essential features of slavery

among us: the right to the slave's labour for life without his consent,

property in that labour, the right to buy, sell and bequeath it; the

right to enforce it on the slave by corporal punishments, which might

have any degree of severity short of death. (See Exod. xxi. 20, 21.)

Virginians had no interest to contend for any stricter form of slavery

than this."

"It is not an ownership of the servant's moral personality, soul, religious destinies, or conscience; but a property in his involuntary labour. And this right to his labour implies just so much control over his person as enables his master to possess his labour. "


"The South has advanced the Africans, as a whole, more rapidly than any other low savage race has ever been educated. Hence we boldly claim, that our system, instead of necessitating the ignorance and vice of its subjects, deserves the credit of a most beneficent culture."

 

[Kenneth Almquist]

Here is a recent blog entry discussing Dabney's defense of slavery in A Defense of Virginia and the South. The writer is somewhat sympathetic to Dabney's position and, as far as I can tell without having actually read Dabney, presents it fairly.

 

[demiurge]

Yes, the South detested slavery so much they enshrined it in their constitution in perpetuity.

The reason that the US Constitution didn't ban the slave trade is the Southern states threatened to walk out if they did. The 20 year period after was the Northerners appeasing the Slave states. It was banned immediately once that 20 year period was up.

These things were well known at the time. Indeed, the main summation of Dabney's defense is that slavery itself was justified. And not only by history, but by divine providence.

Not a very good source for any moral defense of the cause, IMO.

As to the earlier issue on the slave trade:
From Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5, pages 457-61


Gen. Charles C. Pinckney [SC] thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any short time; but only stop them occasionally, as she now does. He moved to commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax with other imports; which he thought right, and which would remove one difficulty that had been started.

Mr. John Rutledge [SC]. If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those states will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest. He was strenuous against striking out the section, and seconded the motion of Gen. Pinckney for a commitment.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris [PA] wished the whole subject to be committed, including the clauses relating to taxes on exports and a navigation act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and Southern States.

Mr. Pierce Butler [SC] declared, that he never would agree to the power of taxing exports.

Mr. Roger Sherman [CT] said it was better to let the Southern States import slaves than to part with them, if they made that a sine qua non. He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse, because it implied they were property. He acknowledged that, if the power of prohibiting the importation to the general government, it would be exercised. He thought it would be its duty to exercise the power.

Mr. George Read [DE] was for the commitment, provided the clause concerning taxes on exports should also be committed.

Mr. Roger Sherman [CT] observed, that the clause had been agreed to, and therefore could not be committed.

Mr. Edmund Randolph [VA] was for committing, in order that some middle ground might, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the clause as it stands. He would sooner risk the Constitution. He dwelt on the dilemma to which the Convention was exposed. By agreeing to the clause, it would revolt the Quakers, the Methodist, and many others in the states having no slaves. On the other hand, two states might be lost to the Union. Let us then, he said, try the chance of a commitment.

 

[brass napoleon]

Here is a recent blog entry discussing Dabney's defense of slavery in A Defense of Virginia and the South. The writer is somewhat sympathetic to Dabney's position and, as far as I can tell without having actually read Dabney, presents it fairly.

If you really want to get a feel for Dabney, you should read him yourself. Good luck.

 

[Rebforever]

I agree Dabney justified slavery per the bible. On the other hand, he was a strong man of the cloth and a teacher that understood the Presbyterian Faith. He was a teacher at the Union Seminary, Richmond Virginia and then was a Minister of Tinkling Spring Presbyterian Church in Fishersville, Virginia which is about 5 miles from where I now reside.
He built a home out of rock all by himself which is still standing app. 3 miles from the Church.

He was a Preacher in Stonewall Jackson Corp.

http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net/Biographies/RL_Dabney/

http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/dabneytribute.pdf

 

[diane]

Gee, Rebforever, that's something I hadn't thought of but wonder if he knew my husband's relation, Walter Hullihen? It's a small world!

 

[Rebforever]

Gee, Rebforever, that's something I hadn't thought of but wonder if he knew my husband's relation, Walter Hullihen? It's a small world!

diane, I would bet they new each other well!

 

[leftyhunter]

I am starting to read it. I am not sure if there are forum rules for Civil War Theological discussions, but here are a few quotes from the treatise that I found interesting for possible discussion. I included the argument for the Curse of Canaan because I had never before seen it fully explained. Amazing nonsense in my humble opinion.

"So that the presence of the major part of the four millions of Africans now in America, is due to New England."

"But one more fact remains: When the late Confederate Government adopted a constitution, although it was composed exclusively of slaveholding States, it voluntarily did what the United States has never done: it placed an absolute prohibition of the foreign slave trade in its organic law."

"That Northern emancipation was prompted by no consideration for the supposed rights of Africans, but by regard to their own interests, is evinced by many facts. Of these, perhaps the most general and striking is the persistent neglect of the welfare of their emancipated slaves; the refusal to give them equal civic rights, until they found a motive for doing so in malice against the South; and the shocking decadence, vice and misery to which a nominal liberty, according to the testimony of Northern writers, has consigned their wretched free blacks."

Curse of Canaan
"These descendants were included in the punishment of their wicked progenitors on that well known principle of God's providence, which "visits the sin of the fathers upon the children," and this again is explained by the fact, that depraved parents will naturally rear depraved children, unless God interfere by a grace to which they have no claim; so that not only punishment, but the sinfulness, becomes hereditary. Doubtless God's sentence, here pronounced by Noah, was based on his foresight of the fact, that Ham's posterity, like their father, would be peculiarly degraded in morals; as actual history testifies of them, so far as its voice extends."

"[The curse of Canaan] does in the first place, what all secular history and speculations fail to do: it gives us the origin of domestic slavery. And we find that it was appointed by God as the punishment of, and remedy for (nearly all God's providential chastisements are also remedial) the peculiar moral degradation of a part of the race. If one case is found where God has authorized domestic slavery, the principle is settled, that it cannot necessarily be sin in itself."

"Whatever may have been the leniency of the system, the

state of the Gentile slaves showed the essential features of slavery

among us: the right to the slave's labour for life without his consent,

property in that labour, the right to buy, sell and bequeath it; the

right to enforce it on the slave by corporal punishments, which might

have any degree of severity short of death. (See Exod. xxi. 20, 21.)

Virginians had no interest to contend for any stricter form of slavery

than this."

"It is not an ownership of the servant's moral personality, soul, religious destinies, or conscience; but a property in his involuntary labour. And this right to his labour implies just so much control over his person as enables his master to possess his labour. "


"The South has advanced the Africans, as a whole, more rapidly than any other low savage race has ever been educated. Hence we boldly claim, that our system, instead of necessitating the ignorance and vice of its subjects, deserves the credit of a most beneficent culture."

Sounds like a real civil rights advocate .
Leftyhunter