Myths of American Slavery

by Walter Kennedy

  As previously demonstrated, from the sugar plantations of the Caribbean and Latin America; the fields, factories, and infrastructure projects of the North; and the rice and cotton plantations of the South; the need for labor was the driving force behind the institution of slavery. Slavery existed across the racial spectrum: white, red, and black. In the absence of the mechanical advantage of the internal combustion engine, numerous types of unfree labor were utilized. Early in the seventeenth century, white slavery and indentured servitude were used in an attempt to supply the needed labor to turn the wilderness of America into a prosperous society. Even when substituted with Native American slavery, the supply of white labor was insufficient to meet the needs of early colonists. Thus, Africa became America's ready source for dependable labor.

  The commerce in African slaves was not an invention of Europeans desiring laborers for their colonies. Rather, it was a continuation of an old process that goes back to ancient times. As repulsive as we of this age find that nefarious commerce to he, it must be remembered that from the seventeenth through the early nineteenth century, little or no odium was attached to the slave trade.

  By the mid-nineteenth century, the Southern states of America had become the home of the largest segment of slave population in the New World. Yet, slavery was common to all of the original thirteen colonies of America. The need for a reliable labor supply was the driving force for slavery both in the North and in the South. As long as the need for labor was acute, abolitionism and arguments of morality had little effect on ending slavery. With an adequate supply of white laborers to meet the needs of society, the ending of slavery was possible.

  The movement to abolish slavery began in the South and North early in the eighteenth century. By the early nineteenth century, most societies for the elimination of slavery were in the South. Southern slaveholders were in the forefront of the movement to end slavery. Both Northerners and Southerners worked together for the elimination of this institution. With the rise of Radical Abolitionism in the second decade of the nineteenth century, the mood of the country radically changed. From mutual respect and cooperation, the North and South began to view each other as deadly enemies. This change was due in large part to the antics of the Radical Abolitionists who had changed the nature of the debate on how to end slavery. From the second decade of the nineteenth century until 1860, America was stampeded into a bloody conflict. This conflict, along with the slave revolt in Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic) are the only instances in the Western Hemisphere of slavery being ended by war.

  Even though New England was the one area of colonial America that was least involved with the institution of slavery, it stands out as the area of America most involved with the nefarious slave trade. This point needs to be made, not to demean New England, but rather to point out how much each section of the United States owes the institution of African slavery for its well being. The South is often criticized because "so many" slaves lived in Dixie. Yet, those who launch such criticism fail to criticize New England and the North because "so many" slaves were brought to the New World by Yankee ships.

  At this point, a couple more myths about slavery can be exposed:

  MYTH: American slavery is a Southern institution.

  REALITY: True, the most common form of slavery within the knowledge of most Americans is the antebellum slavery of the cotton-field variety. Nevertheless, as demonstrated, American slavery extended throughout the North and the South. Pious Puritans, Quaker Friends, as well as Southern planters were avid slaveholders. Slavery was abolished in the North only after it was no longer needed. It could not be abolished on moral or ethical grounds until after it was replaced by free white labor. As will be explained in subsequent chapters, leading members of Northern society noted that slavery in the North was not abolished because people believed it to be immoral, but because of its adverse effect upon white laborers.

  MYTH: The South was a defender of slavery.

  REALITY: No myth about the South gets more play than the myth that the South was a defender of slavery. Yet, the South was an early opponent of the African slave trade and of slavery itself'. Southerners such as Thomas Jefferson spoke out against the institution. Jefferson was not alone in his anti-slavery views. From early in the history of the republic down to the eve of the War for Southern Independence, men such as St. George Tucker of Virginia in 1796, Governor Gerard C. Brandon of Mississippi in 1828, and Robert E. Lee in 1861, spoke out against slavery and/or the slave trade. Unfortunately for the Southern abolition movement, there were two factors working against them. First, like the early abolition efforts in the North, as long as the demand for labor was high and the supply of free white laborers low, appeals to the sense of'moral outrage of the man in the street had little effect in promoting the end of slavery. Second, with the advent of Radical Abolitionism in the North, efforts to end slavery in the South were given a death blow. Even in the face of these obstacles, men such as Jefferson Davis and other Southerners still pursued the idea of gradual emancipation. No, the South was not wedded to the idea of slavery. Slavery existed in the South just as it had existed under very similar circumstances in the North. The South has always insisted that the whole truth about the institution of slavery be told and not just that portion that panders to the Radical Abolitionists' myth.

  CHAPTER 3

  Abolitionism Versus Christianity

  In denying that slave-holding is in itself sinful, I do not defend slavery as an institution that ought to be Perpetuated.... I desire to see every slave free; not nominally free, as are the colored people in

  N. L. Rice

  A Debate on Slavery

  To the average church-going American, nothing could sound more absurd than the idea that the movement to end slavery was anti-Christian. As previously demonstrated, early in this movement representatives from all sections and social groups in America participated in the anti-slavery effort. The biblical world-view of early Americans led the way to ameliorate the evils associated with slavery or to end slavery itself. Even slaveholders, being motivated by Christianity and a sense of humanity, were active in these efforts. Both Northern and Southern emancipationists viewed slavery as a social evil much akin to a tyrannical system of government. Being republicans, they viewed despotic government as a poor social choice but not as a sinful choice. An individual who supports a despotic government may be participating in an unwise form of government, yet not be participating in a sin. This is a key point to remember when considering the life of early emancipationists. Early slaveholders, who pointed the way to the abolition of slavery by freeing their slaves, were viewed as men who were no more responsible for the institution of slavery than non-slaveholders. Thus, the movement for ending slavery moved forward.

  As has been shown, with the onset of the Radical Abolitionist movement, slavery was redefined as one of the most hideous and hateful sins known to mankind. Those associated with slaveholding were held up to the nation and to the world as the personification of evil. By the time of the rise of Radical Abolitionism, the slavery kingdom in America for the most part existed in the South. Concomitantly with the rise of a new definition of slavery, there was a rejection of orthodox Christianity in the North and the advent of the South as America's Bible Belt.2 At that time, the orthodox Bible-believing South was beginning to see itself portrayed as a den of sinfulness by heretical Northern Unitarians and Transcendentalists. Obviously, the movement to end slavery, as well as many other societal reforms, was in response to the effects of Christianity. But, equally important, the rise of Radical Abolitionism, with its non-biblical definition of slavery as a sin in itself, had dire consequences not only for the ending of slavery, but also for the union among the American states.

  Unfortunately the non-biblical view of slavery, as espoused by the Radical Abolitionists, dominates the discussion of slavery in most churches in modern America. As a result, the views of the Radical Abolitionists are taken as the American view of ending s
lavery. Therefore, the more commonly held view of the early emancipationists of the North and South is characterized as a "pro-slavery" argument. The work and effort of early Christians toward ending the slave trade, improving the condition of existing slaves, and advancing the idea of gradual emancipation are scoffed at and otherwise ridiculed as halfway measures that tended to prolong the sin of slavery. From approximately 1820 until the eve of the War for Southern Independence, the Radical Abolitionists' view increasingly gained influence in the North. Since the War, that same view has also gained sway over the pulpits and academic centers of the South. Therefore, the work and the effort of early Southern emancipationists are virtually unspoken of by modern churchmen. Even worse, when note is given to the work of the early emancipationists, they are too often condemned as (using the Radical Abolitionists' terminology) "defenders of slavery."

  This view of slavery as a "sin" was debated at length in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1845. The question of the debate was "Is Slave- Holding In Itself Sinful, And The Relation Between Master And Slave, A Sinful Relation?" Representing the views of the Radical Abolitionists, Rev. J. Blanchard, pastor of the Sixth Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio, spoke in the affirmative. Representing the views of the traditional emancipationists, Dr. N. L. Rice, pastor of the Central Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio, spoke in the negative. The debate took place in one of the largest public rooms in Cincinnati and took several days to complete. If slavery is as horrible it sin as Radical Abolitionists maintain, it should be rather easy to prove the point. Yet, in more than twenty-four hours of debate, the Radical Abolitionists' view could not be maintained. This fact should give cause for modern Christians, who are inundated with the Radical Abolitionist view of slavery as a sin, to stop and question this now-prominent point of view. Why did it take the Church more than nineteen hundred years to determine that this most contemptible practice is "sinful More important, what are the counter-arguments that Christians, starting with the Apostle Paul and including New England cleric Cotton Mather, as well as American pastors such as Dr. N. L. Rice of Cincinnati, Ohio, and R. L. Dabney of Virginia, used to refute the assertion that slavery itself is a sin?

  Although modern Christianity has incorporated the Radical Abolitionists' view of slavery into its theology, there is a large pre- twenty-first-century view of slavery that is not acknowledged by the modern Church. In actuality, the pre-twenty-first-century Christian view of slavery has been suppressed by the modern Church. Therefore, in the spirit of openness, Dr. Rice's pre-twenty-first-century argument that slavery is not a sin in itself will he given below in an abbreviated form. In the following account some of the more important points and arguments made by Dr. Rice, from his speech in opposition to the view that slavery in itself is a sin, will he presented. Rev. Blanchard, it proponent of the Radical Abolitionists' view, had been chosen by a group of ten Radical Abolitionists in the city of Cincinnati to speak in defense of their point of view of slavery.' Modern Christianity's arguments that slavery is it sin in itself runs parallel with those of Rev. Blanchard.

  Again, it must be remembered that the theme of the debate was not whether or not sinful acts took place within the system of slavers, but rather whether slavery in itself and the relationship between slave and master was a sin. It should also be pointed out that Dr. Rice was not defending slavery. Dr. Rice, like many Southerners, was an open opponent of slavery. Like the early' American abolitionists (i.e., emancipationists), Dr. Rice understood that ending slavery was a diffictilt task that would take both time and Christian charity to accomplish. Nevertheless, to this day Radical Abolitionists (or their modern counterparts, liberals) will describe Dr. Rice's defense of the biblical view of slavery as a defense of, slavery itself.

  In typical form, Rev. Blanchard, a Radical Abolitionist, opened the debate with many charges against slavery itself. Some of the charges leveled against slavery were that: (1) slaves are not citizens of any country, (2) slaves are not allowed to marry, (3) slave children are born out of wedlock, and (4) children of slaves are not born into families. As Dr. Rice took note, Rev. Blanchard used all his time in opening the debate and yet did not once address the theme of the debate (i.e., the biblical issue)-is slavery in itself sinful. Dr. Rice's opening remarks are as follows:

  I any happy to meet Mr. Blanchard on the present occasion, not as an individual, but as the chosen representative of the abolitionists of this city, selected by ten of their most respectable men. We have the right to conclude, that now full justice will be done to their cause; that if the claims of abolitionism can be sustained, it will now be done. I rejoice that the debate, as published, will be circulated both in the slave-holding and in the free States-that now at length the abolitionists will have the opportunity of spreading their strongest arguments before the slaveholders, as well as before the public generally.

  It is important that the audience keep distinctly before their minds the question we have met to discuss, to wit: Is slave-holding in itself sinful, and the relation between master and slave a sinful relationship? I was truly surprised to hear the gentleman speak forty minutes without reaching the question, and twenty more without defining what he means by slave-holding! I had expected to hear from a gentleman so long accustomed to discuss this subject, at least something in the way of argument, during the first hour, but it is passed, and the definition is not completed!

  I am perfectly aware of the prejudices I must encounter in the minds of some of the audience, from the fact that I stand opposed, in this discussion, to those who claim to be par excellence the friends of liberty, and particularly of the slave. To remove such prejudices from the minds of the candid, I will state precisely the ground I intend to occupy; and, if I mistake not, before this debate shall close, it will he considered at least a debatable question, whether the abolitionists are entitled to be considered the best friends of the slaves.

  1. The question between us and the abolitionists, is not whether it is right to force a free man with no crime, into slavery. The gentleman has indeed presented the subject in this light. He has told you, that I am about to justify those who, at a future day, may enslave our children. Such, however, I need scarcely say, is not the fact. In the slave-holding, as well as in the free States, it is admitted and maintained, that to reduce a free man into a state of slavery, is a crime of the first magnitude. Far from defending the African slave trade, we abhor and denounce it as piracy. We therefore, maintain, that American slavery ought never to have existed. But the slave-holding States have inherited this evil; and the important and difficult question now arises-how shall the evil be removed? The present owners of slaves did not reduce them to their present condition. They found them in a state of slavery; and the question to be solved is-how far are individuals bound, under existing circumstances, to restore them to freedom? For example, it would be very wicked in me whether by force or fraud, to reduce a rich man to poverty, but how far I am bound to enrich a man reduced to poverty by others, is a very different question.

  2. The question before us is not whether the particular laws by which slavery has been regulated in the countries where it has existed, are just and righteous. What has the present discussion to do with Aristotle's description of slavery, which the gentleman has given us? Or what has it to do with the laws by which in the Roman empire slavery was regulated? Does the gentleman really expect me, in proving that slave-holding is not in itself sinful, to defend the slave laws of Rome? It is impossible not to see, that those laws have nothing to do with the question he stands pledged to discuss. Still he entertains us with Aristotle's definition of slavery, and with Gibbon's account of slavery in the Roman empire. Many of those laws, it is readily admitted, were unjust and cruel in a high degree. But by the same kind of logic it would be easy to prove, that the conjugal and parental relations are in themselves sinful. I do not place the relation of master and slave on an equal footing with those relations; but I do maintain that the gentleman has no right to use an argument against the for
mer, that would bear with equal force against the latter. The Roman laws gave the father power over the life of his child, and the husband power over the life of his child, and the husband power to degrade and tyrannize over his wife; and the same is true of almost all pagan countries. But shall we denounce the conjugal and parental relations as in themselves sinful, because they were regulated by had laws? Those relations, we contend, are lawful and right; but the particular laws by which in many countries they are regulated, are unjust. So the fact that many of the laws of Rome concerning slavery were cruel, does not prove, that the relation is in itself sinful. The gentleman's argument proves too much, and, therefore, according to an admitted principle of logic, proves nothing.