How Antebellum Christians Justified Slavery
“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures.”
Richard Furman
“While many Christians today view slavery as a grave moral wrong, the reality is that throughout history, some Christians have used the Bible to defend it. For example, in the early 19th century, a Baptist pastor named Richard Furman wrote a letter to a governor arguing that slavery was “in accordance with the designs of Divine Providence.” Christian Educators Academy by Camilla Klein
What many modern-day evangelicals fail to acknowledge is that many religious leaders of that era, particularly in the South, supported slavery and used scripture to justify their beliefs. Four such religious leaders are listed below.
James H. Thornwell, a Presbyterian minister in South Carolina, argued that slavery was “ordained by God” and that it was “in harmony with the spirit of Christianity.”
Thornton Stringfellow, a Baptist minister, in his book “Slavery Defended from Scripture,” argued that slavery was consistent with biblical teachings and that abolitionists were misguided in their interpretation of the Bible.
John C. Calhoun, a prominent politician and slave owner, argued that slavery was a necessary evil and that the enslavement of Africans was a benevolent act that saved them from savagery.
Richard Furman, a Baptist pastor, wrote a letter to his governor arguing that slavery was “in accordance with the designs of Divine Providence.
We will explore the writings of each in future blogs, but for this blog we will look at Richard Furman’s proslavery argument. His 54-hundred-word letter to the Governor of South Caroline can be found here.
[Furman’s argument is very wordy and (as a former schoolteacher) I found it verbose with an inordinate amount of run on sentences. I have gleaned his 5,400 words down to a more manageable 1,000 words and have underlined certain phrases that I believe to be especially pertinent.]
Richard Furman
“Exposition of the Views of the Baptists Relative to the Coloured Population of the United States in Communication to the Governor of South Carolina,” Charleston, 24th December 1822
Sir:
The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.
Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles, who feared not the faces of men, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause of their God, would have tolerated it, for a moment, in the Christian Church. But instead, they let the relationship remain untouched, as being lawful and right.
In proving this subject justifiable by Scriptural authority, its morality is also proved; for the Divine Law never sanctions immoral actions.
The Christian golden rule has been urged as an unanswerable argument against holding slaves. But surely this rule is never to be urged against that which the Divine government has established.
Cruelty is certainly inadmissible; but servitude may be consistent with such degrees of happiness as men usually attain in this imperfect state of things.
The Africans brought to America were, in general, slaves by their own consent, before they came from their own country, or fell into the hands of white men.
Much tyranny has been exercised by individuals, as masters over their slaves, and that the religious interests of the latter have been too much neglected by many cannot be denied. But the fullest proof of these facts, will not prove, that the holding men in subjection, as slaves, is a moral evil, and inconsistent with the Christianity.
If the above representation of the Scriptural doctrine, and the manner of obtaining slaves from Africa is just; and if also purchasing them has been the means of saving human life, which there is great reason to believe it has.
If, also, by their (the negro) own confession, which has been made in manifold instances, their condition, when they have come into the hands of humane masters here, has been greatly bettered by the change.
In addition to all other considerations, the translation from their native country to this has been the means of their mental and religious improvement, and so of obtaining salvation, as many of them have joyfully and thankfully confessed.
It appears to be equally clear, that those, who by reasoning on abstract principles… should be particularly careful… that they do not by a perversion of the Scriptural doctrine… invade the domestic and religious peace and rights of our Citizens… and prevent indirectly, the religious improvement of the people they… professed to benefit.
To pious minds it has given pain to hear men, respectable for intelligence and morals, sometimes say, that holding slaves is indeed indefensible, but that to us it is necessary, and must be supported.
It is therefore, firmly believed, that general emancipation to the Negroes in this country, would not… be for their own happiness, as a body, while it would be extremely injurious to the community at large in various ways.
If a man has obtained slaves by purchase, or inheritance, and the holding of them as such is justifiable by the law of God; why should he be required to liberate them?
Should, however, a time arrive, when the Africans in our country might be found qualified to enjoy freedom; and, when they might obtain it in a manner consistent with the interest and peace of the community at large, the Convention would be happy in seeing them free:
Finally, for their good, if they embrace his salvation, humble themselves before him, learn righteousness, and submit to his holy will. To have them brought to this happy state is the great object of Christian benevolence, and of Christian piety.
The idea that the Bible’s teaching the doctrine of emancipation as necessary, tends to make servants insubordinate to proper authority.
In is true, that a considerable number of those (negroes) who were found guilty and executed, laid claim to a religious character; yet several of these were grossly immoral, and, in general, they were members of an irregular body, which called itself the African Church, and had intimate connection… with a similar body of men in a Northern City, among whom the supposed right to emancipation is strenuously advocated.
The result of this inquiry and reasoning, on the subject of slavery, brings us… to the following conclusions: That the holding of slaves is justifiable by the doctrine and example contained in Holy writ; and is, therefore consistent with Christian uprightness, both in sentiment and conduct.
That slavery, when tempered with humanity and justice, is a state of tolerable happiness; equal, if not superior, to that which many poor enjoy in countries reputed free.
That a master has a scriptural right to govern his slaves so as to keep them in subjection; to demand and receive from them a reasonable service; and to correct them for the neglect of duty, for their vices and transgressions; but that to impose on them unreasonable, rigorous services, or to inflict on them cruel punishment, he has neither a scriptural nor a moral right.
That it is the positive duty of servants to reverence their master, to be obedient, industrious, faithful to him, and careful of his interests; and without being so, they can neither be the faithful servants of God, nor be held as regular members of the Christian Church.
Claims to freedom as a right… would be unjust; and all attempts to obtain in by violence and fraud would be wicked.
It is, also, believed to be a just conclusion, that the interest and security of the state would be promoted, by allowing considerable religious privileges to this class, by attaching them, from principles of gratitude and love to the interests of their masters and the state; and thus, rendering their fidelity firm and constant.
While on the other hand, (to emancipate them), as some have supposed necessary… would be felt as oppressive, (it would) … sour and alienate their minds from their masters and the public, and to make them vulnerable to temptation.
All which is, with deference, submitted to the consideration of your Excellency.
There you have it. Make your own decision.
Coming next:
Many evangelicals (like Lewis) argue that slavery and slave laws found in the bible, do nothing to contradict their belief in a perfectly good God. They are quick to exonerate their God from any culpableness for slavery as experienced in 18th and 19th century America. This leaves us wondering what might have happened if the bible didn’t condone slavery.
From Where I Stand
Dale Crum
mt.toll@comcast.net