# Doug Wilson's pamphlet on slavery criticized



## crhoades (Dec 10, 2004)

*Doug Wilson\'s pamphlet on slavery criticized*

For Wilson's side of the story, check his Blog @ http://www.dougwils.com/

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1913619p-8258411c.html

*School defends slavery booklet*

By T. KEUNG HUI, Staff Writer


Students at one of the area's largest Christian schools are reading a controversial booklet that critics say whitewashes Southern slavery with its view that slaves lived "a life of plenty, of simple pleasures."
Leaders at Cary Christian School say they are not condoning slavery by using "Southern Slavery, As It Was," a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery and asserts that slaves weren't treated as badly as people think.

Principal Larry Stephenson said the school is only exposing students to different ideas, such as how the South justified slavery. He said the booklet is used because it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery.

"You can have two different sides, a Northern perspective and a Southern perspective," he said.

The booklet isn't the only connection its two co-authors have with the school.

One of the authors, Douglas Wilson, a pastor in Moscow, Idaho, wrote a book on classical education upon which the school bases its philosophy. Wilson's Association of Classical and Christian Schools accredited Cary Christian, and he is scheduled to speak at the school's graduation in May.

Some school leaders, including Stephenson, founded Christ Church in Cary, which is affiliated with Wilson's Idaho church.

The booklet's other author, Steve Wilkins, is a member of the board of directors of the Alabama-based League of the South. That is classified as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights group.

"Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins have essentially constructed the ruling theology of the neo-Confederate movement," said Mark Potok, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report.

Potok said people who argue that the South should secede again have latched onto the writings of Wilson and Wilkins, which portray the Confederacy as the last true Christian civilization.

At a time when a number of Triangle Christian schools have lost enrollment and even closed, Cary Christian has seen rapid growth since it opened in 1996.

The school has 623 students in kindergarten through 12th grade. With a relatively low tuition -- up to $5,000 -- it has attracted families from 55 churches. At least one parent must be a regular attendee of a church.

Classical education

Stephenson said the school's growth is based on parental desire for a classical education founded on the basics of phonics, grammar, logic and rhetoric. Students read many classics, such as the writings of Plato and Socrates.

"As a classical Christian school, we think it's important for our students to be able to think and not be slanted to a particular position," Stephenson said. "We want them to think for themselves."

Until two years ago, Stephenson said, middle school students also had read excerpts from "Southern Slavery." He said the booklet was a counterpoint to "Uncle Tom's Cabin," which he said portrayed all Southern whites as treating their slaves badly.

Once the Civil War was no longer taught in middle school, Stephenson said, Cary Christian stopped using the booklet in those grades.

But the 43-page booklet is still read in its entirety by ninth-graders when they study the Civil War. Stephenson said the booklet can help students formulate arguments when taking the pro-Southern side in debates.

"A student may be assigned an opinion they may not agree with, so they will understand both sides," Stephenson said.

Angela Kennedy, whose daughters have attended Cary Christian since 1996, said all the booklet does is help students learn about both sides so that they have a basis to form their own opinions. She pointed out that the students also read Abraham Lincoln's speeches.

"They really do get both sides of the story," Kennedy said. "In public schools, all they get is one side of the story. That's not education. That's indoctrination."

Stephenson said the booklet is discussed for two days. Even as they read the booklet, he said, students are told slavery was wrong.

"Slavery is wrong," Stephenson said. "That's not debatable about slavery. The South was wrong about the slave trade."

Parent's support

Marcus Ranch, who has three daughters at Cary Christian, said he has no problem with the school using the booklet. He said it offers an accurate portrayal that is overlooked of how many slaves were treated kindly by their owners.

"That book is fine," Ranch said. "It does a good job with that particular perspective."

But Potok questioned how the school can use a booklet that asserts that slavery "was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence."

"What these men have written is an apology for slavery," he said. "They're putting window dressing on an abhorrent institution."

Potok also blasted the booklet, which was published in 1996, for plagiarizing a previous work. The booklet has received criticism from a number of historians.

Wilson declined to comment and referred questions to his assistant, Mike Lawyer. Lawyer said the booklet has been pulled from publication because of faulty footnotes and citation errors.

Lawyer said he thinks few schools use the booklet, which is published by a company owned by Wilson's Idaho church.

But Lawyer said the authors stand by their central belief that the Civil War didn't have to happen and that slavery would have ended on its own.

"The Southern Poverty Law Center is just trying to make money out of this," Lawyer said. "The Southern Poverty Law Center is totally off base to think in any way that the book is neo-Confederate."

But the use of the booklet is leaving some area pastors concerned that it could promote intolerance.

"If there's any attempt to divide us, it's totally un-Christian," said Richard Dial, pastor of Cary Church of God.

Mike Woods, administrator of Wake Christian Academy, said he couldn't see his school using "Southern Slavery, As it Was," especially with younger students.

"It's so easy for some of them to take something they read and assume you're in favor of it," he said.

Staff writer T. Keung Hui can be reached at 829-4534 or [email protected].

{Title edited for clarity}

[Edited on 12/11/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 10, 2004)

Well I for one am glad that people like Wilson and Wilkins are trying to broaden the perspective on the Civil War. From what I've read from them on this topic they have been fair to the controversial issue of slavery, on the other hand I feel that the southern pride in Wilkins' writings may tend towards an unecessary extremity.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 10, 2004)

I think that they, like any pastors, are PRIMARILY ministers of the Gospel. As such, wouldn't it be better not to get involved in such controversial issues so ripe with seeds of division and anger and hatred. They may be doing it in the name of "education" and "presenting a fair portrayal," but when all is said and done they are Christian leaders who are both popular and influencial. Their message, however secular ("this isn't a church matter, just our 'educational' side"), is going to be inextricably tied with their Gospel.

Why burden yourself with having to prove your point in such an obsure area as this? Why uneccessarily divide your hearers over a matter that is not Christ? He is divisive enough.

I think ministers such as these need to use every measure of restraint to avoid getting embroiled in these types of issues. We've got a hard enough message for the public to accept without having to convince people that this too, is acceptable.
(the reading of the book, not slavery itself; I understand that that's not their point.)

So what if the kids education hasn't "left any stone unturned" and now they might not be able to "argue as successfully against a point they might not otherwise agree with."? Big, darn deal! 
Let's turn away from every hinderance to our message.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 10, 2004)

I don't know who on this board has read this booklet, but I have. I would not call it a fair representation of slavery in the South, though it does bring up some interesting points. It tends to rationalize the owning of slaves. It follows the logic of R.L. Dabney's book "A Defense of Virginia and the South", which is also a rationalization of Southern slavery. Anyway you cut it, man stealing is not biblical despite the fact that some slaves were well treated. All in all, there is no biblical defence for Southern slavery.

This book is actually an attempt to put a happy face on the ante-bellum South and show that the South was not that bad (it trys to counter "Yankee" propaganda) and was the last of the true Christian and Calvinistic cultures, which Wilkins would like us to return to as his model for the future Theonomic Nirvana.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> I think that they, like any pastors, are PRIMARILY ministers of the Gospel. As such, wouldn't it be better not to get involved in such controversial issues so ripe with seeds of division and anger and hatred. They may be doing it in the name of "education" and "presenting a fair portrayal," but when all is said and done they are Christian leaders who are both popular and influencial. Their message, however secular ("this isn't a church matter, just our 'educational' side"), is going to be inextricably tied with their Gospel.
> 
> Why burden yourself with having to prove your point in such an obsure area as this? Why uneccessarily divide your hearers over a matter that is not Christ? He is divisive enough.
> ...



Christopher,

This is an excellent point. Why throw up unnecessary barriers to the gospel? There are so many areas of the South to defend (State's rights, etc) that such a hot button issue as slavery is unneeded trouble.

In any event, even if we were to try and go back to some kind of "purer" past age, there are many others that would be superior to the antebellum South.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

I haven't read Wilson's booklet, but I'll add to my future reading list. There are many things that Wilson and Wilkins can be rightfully criticized for, but if the point of their booklet is to follow Dabney's thinking on the subject then I am grateful for that. Yes, the gospel ought to be the primary focus of ministers, but can they not express opinions and speak to the Lordship of Christ over cultural matters as well? Being Southern myself and a Dabney fan, I am aware of the knee-jerk reactions by many to any defense of the antebellum South, but I don't think Southern Calvinistic apologists ought to make any apologies for that.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Dec 10, 2004)

I think such topics should be left to the study of professors and historians who are responsible for such research. This goes along with what Christopher said.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2004)

Where is the wisdom? I do know that not all slaves wanted to ride the rails of the underground railroad. I have read comments from others that wish the war hadn't happened because it ruined their lives. Yes, there were abuses but the focus for the school is in the wrong place. You could teach a lot about Government from the civil war. Why would a Christian School or Pastor put themself in the way of anyone who wants to poke holes in what they are doing. They were asking for this fight.

There is a good Banner of Truth book called 'Preachers with Power' that shows that Slave owners and slaves were usually very familial. It also shows who was teaching and preaching to the colored folk. It wasn't the North.

[Edited on 12-10-2004 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by FrozenChosen_
> I think such topics should be left to the study of professors and historians who are responsible for such research. This goes along with what Christopher said.



Should Calvin have only written about theological matters and not cultural issues?


----------



## crhoades (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by FrozenChosen_
> ...



Kuyper REALLY wasted his time then with the Free University and the newspapers, and ...and...and....

If Christ isn't Lord over all, what type of Lord is he? I'm afraid we are stuck in the whole sacred/secular dichotomy. The gospel should transform culture - not retreat from it. 

Ministers shouldn't speak out against the modern day holocaust of abortion?


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 10, 2004)

I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with Wilson and Wilkins writing this book, but there is more going on here than a simple book about slavery. It is one piece of a larger puzzle as they attempt to reconstruct a view of the antebellum South as an example of what a Christian nation should be. With that in mind you would have to deal with the negative conotations associated with slavery.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Exactly! Men like Calvin, Knox, Beza, Luther, Rutherford, Gillespie, Dabney and Kuyper knew what the priority was -- the gospel -- but they did not confine their message only to salvation. The Lordship of Christ is indeed over all areas of life, including culture. We need godly men to speak to these issues and Wilson -- if he is to be commended for _anything_ -- should be commended for this above all.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by FrozenChosen_
> I think such topics should be left to the study of professors and historians who are responsible for such research. This goes along with what Christopher said.




Yes, Theology is the Queen of Sciences for a reason. Perhaps Wilson/Wilkins ought not to promote it that much, but the LAST PEOPLE ON EARTH you want writing about the Old South are your typical, university professors who are pretending to be objective, yet dancing to the strings of the Spirit of the Age. Read volume 4 of Dabney's Discussions and see how much space is given to refuting his arguments. Like, if you can't refute them, just call them backwater-racists.
Daniel, I am not griping at you, but even fervent Christians I know who see my book shelf ask me why I support racism. Can anyone see the big picture? If we let the humanists rewrite non-church history, should we then give them free reign in other areas?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with Wilson and Wilkins writing this book, but there is more going on here than a simple book about slavery. It is one piece of a larger puzzle as they attempt to reconstruct a view of the antebellum South as an example of what a Christian nation should be. With that in mind you would have to deal with the negative conotations associated with slavery.



The antebellum South wasn't a Nirvana and God's judgment certainly came upon her in a powerful way in 1865 and beyond. The South had the opportunity to confess Jesus Christ as King over the Confederacy (as Thornwell wanted) but failed to do so. But compared to the godless, Unitarian, Jacobin (to use Dabney's word) North, the antebellum South had replaced 17th century Massachusetts as the home of Biblical culture in America. Think Dabney, Thornwell, Girardeau, Palmer -- these men in the Southern Presbyterian Church were giants in Christian Church history. They represent the best of the South and, frankly, on the Northern side, during that time period, there is little comparison. They defended Southern culture while calling it to repentance in areas that were warranted. Jackson and Lee too did not find it irreconcilable to fight for liberty on the side of the South. Man-stealing is indeed a sin, but who engaged in it? African warlords and Yankee traders, primarily. Was the South guiltless? No. But...slavery is not instrinsically sinful and many positive examples of the master-slave relationship existed in the South. "Uncle Tom" needs a truthful counterpoint. Did slavery as an institution in the South need reform? Yes. Would to God in fact that it had died a natural death! Would to God that the South had jettisoned every hindrance to Reformation! But, comparatively, the South during that age was far and away more Biblical as a culture than anything else around and light-years ahead of where we are today in American history. I pray the South will rise again -- not to return to slavery and not to uphold Southern virtues apart from spiritual Reformation, but as Winthrop wrote of his desire to see New England made like unto "a city set upon a hill" so that God would dwell among them and his light shine forth to other nations, so likewise do I desire that for the South -- and for America.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2004)

How many slave ships sailed under the American Flag?

How many slave ships sailed under the Confederate Flag? None.


----------



## Craig (Dec 10, 2004)

I think this is just another piece of evidence that Wilson loves controversy. This isn't about what's "out of bounds" for pastors to write about...the man lives for this stuff.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> How many slave ships sailed under the American Flag?
> 
> How many slave ships sailed under the Confederate Flag? None.



Yes, the North was full of sinners, and paid for their sin in many ways.

But last time I looked, the Bible did not excuse someone who just profitted or gained from another's sin. So even if we assume that ALL slave ships were run by Northerners and Southerners were NEVER involved, they were still guilty of man-stealing, since they knew what was happening, and they provided the market for such.

And while men like Girardeau should be admired and held up as great examples of the true diversification that the gospel brings (and not the liberal shlock), it should shame the South that slaves were not permitted to read (a fact which I believe Dabney laments, since they could not read their Bibles), and that the God given institution of marriage was marred.

How many here would want their children to be slaves?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 10, 2004)

More here http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=254


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> More here http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=254



Here's what I think of this article:


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 10, 2004)

What an awful opinion piece. Who writes this stuff?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> And while men like Girardeau should be admired and held up as great examples of the true diversification that the gospel brings (and not the liberal shlock), it should shame the South that slaves were not permitted to read (a fact which I believe Dabney laments, since they could not read their Bibles), and that the God given institution of marriage was marred.



Stonewall Jackson defied Virginia civil law which prohibited the gathering of slaves for the purpose of learning how to read. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/williams1.html

The fact that Virginia had such a law was probably born out of fear on the part of those who had experienced violence at the hands of men like Nat Turner, but it does not excuse such a law. Any law that keeps the Scriptures out of the hands of the laity no matter what their skin color or ethnicity is an unjust law.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2004)

The Southern Povery Law center is the most vicious race-site on the web. They make Neo-Nazis look like scholars in matters of objectivity. All you republicans out there: to them you are white-biogt-race mongers because you are against abortion, affirmative action, and homosexuality. Don't get me wrong, they hate the CP as well. Put it this way, if Dee Morris says something evil about Wilson, Wilkins, John Thomas Cripps, I know those men must be doing something right.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2004)

Oh, I forgot a few smileys:


----------



## crhoades (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



Yikes...I didn't know that I was that much of an extremist. I didn't know I read books that is considered hate speech. So much for freedom of speech or thought. All opposing view points (read reformed Christian or even libertarian for that matter - won't even mention national confessionalism or theonomic...) have been tossed down the memory hole. I guess all of it is now considered double-plus un-good according to the Ministry of Truth.

"War is Peace"
"War is Peace"
"War is Peace"

"Freedom is Slavery"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Freedom is Slavery"

"Ignorance is Strength"
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Ignorance is Strength"


----------



## AdamM (Dec 10, 2004)

You just can´t make the practice of man-stealing acceptable under any circumstances. It is a sin and should not be defended by anyone. The duty of the Christian in that era was to see that seek immediate end to practice, to see that that the perpetrators were punished and the victims restored. Furthermore the Christian slave owner after repenting for his participation in an enterprise that violated God´s law owed his slaves a fair and just wage for their past labors. 

If you knowingly buy a stolen car radio you're just as guilty as the punk who ripped it out the dashboard and it does not matter that you think your car is better location for the radio or that it will receive so much better care in your car then it would have in the original owners car.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Agreed, and Jackson was a good man for it. But fear never justifies sin. The Bible is crystal clear on that.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> You just can´t make the practice of man-stealing acceptable under any circumstances. It is a sin and should not be defended by anyone. The duty of the Christian in that era was to see that seek immediate end to practice, to see that that the perpetrators were punished and the victims restored. Furthermore the Christian slave owner after repenting for his participation in an enterprise that violated God´s law owed his slaves a fair and just wage for their past labors.
> 
> If you knowingly buy a stolen car radio you're just as guilty as the punk who ripped it out the dashboard and it does not matter that you think your car is better location for the radio or that it will receive so much better care in your car then it would have in the original owners car.



I don't know anyone who is defending man-stealing. A question for you: was slavery in the Bible sinful? Did Paul err in telling Onesimus to return to his master Philemon?

Here is a statement by Steve Wilkins with which I agree: 




> On the issue of slavery, I want to be very clear on what I understand to be the teaching of the Bible. Any race-based system of slavery is an abomination and cannot be defended by anyone who takes the Bible seriously. Man-stealing is also a grievous sin and is clearly forbidden in God's Word, but owning slaves and following the restrictions of the Word of God in the treatment of them, is not a sin. A Christian view of slavery requires the master to educate, evangelize, and edify all slaves under his authority "” so as to prepare them to live responsible and faithful lives under God. The South did not consistently follow the Biblical requirements which governed slavery and for this and other sins justly suffered the judgment of God in the war and afterwards.
> 
> The North, ignoring its own role in the establishment of slavery through the slave trade, and rife with the racism that tragically characterized the majority of Americans in the 19th century, was also judged by God in this war. The radicals in the North were driven not so much by a concern for the slave as they were by a lust for power and a desire to transform the country from a constitutional republic into a unitary State ruled by an all-powerful, centralized government. It was not necessary to fight a war in order to end slavery. But war was a convenient tool by which the radicals could put their revolutionary ideas in place. Slavery, therefore, was merely the pretext to justify the destruction of the old constitutional order of our union. By means of the war, political sovereignty was wrested from the States and placed exclusively in the hands of the Federal government. The central government, which was originally created to be the servant of the states, became their master. In this way, the war was the means by which God judged both the North and the South.
> 
> We can all rejoice over the demise of slavery in this country. But the war of 1861 resulted only in the formal abolition of the institution. The enduring legacy of that war is not the abolition of slavery, but the creation of an unconstitutional, unrestrained, leviathan-like central government which has effectively destroyed our liberties and enslaved us all.



Source: http://reformed-theology.org/southern/slavery.htm

[Edited on 10-12-2004 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

Virginia was the first political jurisdiction in the world to outlaw the slave trade (1778). This and other interesting facts can be found at: 

http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/theocon/part6.htm


----------



## AdamM (Dec 10, 2004)

> A question for you: was slavery in the Bible sinful? Did Paul err in telling Philemon to return to his master?



You are making the assumption that Onesimus was the victim of man-stealing, which I don't think is warranted. The bible clearly forbids man-stealing and man-stealing was how the slaves were attained (they didn't volunteer for a pleasure cruise across the ocean.) 

Is it ever ok for a Christian to make use of property they know was gotten by means that violate God's law? 

Is it ever ok for a Christian to participate in a sinful enterprise even though it may not be illegal in a particular society at that time? Example, can a Christain today work as an accountant for an abortion provider? 

Does a Christain have an obligation to pay his workers a fair wage for services rendered in the present and past?





[Edited on 10-12-2004 by AdamM]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > A question for you: was slavery in the Bible sinful? Did Paul err in telling Philemon to return to his master?
> ...



How does one become a slave, I wonder? People certainly don't volunteer for the job. It's true I don't know specifically how Onesimus was enslaved, but I gather from your questions that it doesn't really matter since the Christian master's duty, according to you, is to release his slave. Paul did not instruct Philemon to free Onesimus but to receive him again into the former relationship only requiring him to exercise Christian charity as one brother to another. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that Onesimus became a slave willingly. 

In Leviticus 25.44, the Hebrews were authorized to buy slaves from other nations. It is not reasonable to assume that those slaves being bought were enslaved voluntarily. Furthermore, in verse 46 we see that such slaves could be passed on from one generation to the next. Scriptural guidelines were in place, however, for Hebrew masters with respect to how their slaves should be treated. Nothing in the New Testament overthrows this aspect of social order. With respect to African slaves, in most cases, those slaves were first enslaved by Africans, then sold to Yankees, then bought by Southerners. Life as a slave in Africa or on a slaver trading ship was miserable, but by and large, life for the slave was much, much better on a Southern plantation. If purchasing a slave was sinful, Scripture would tell us so. Southern masters were accountable to civil and Biblical standards of behavior just like anyone else and it was in their interests to have happy slaves not unhappy ones. It is all well and good to say that a master should have coughed up the money to buy a slave just so he could free him, but it is not realistic; the master/slave relationship in fact provided benefits for both parties. Slavery had many attendant evils, but buying a slave in itself is not evil per se. In fact, under 19th century circumstances, slaves were better off on Southern plantation than were they were before they were purchased.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> In Leviticus 25.44, the Hebrews were authorized to buy slaves from other nations. It is not reasonable to assume that those slaves being bought were enslaved voluntarily. Furthermore, in verse 46 we see that such slaves could be passed on from one generation to the next. Scriptural guidelines were in place, however, for Hebrew masters with respect to how their slaves should be treated. Nothing in the New Testament overthrows this aspect of social order.



However, isn't this social order built on the unique covenantal status that Israel enjoyed as God's favored nation? The language of v. 44 is part of the unique despoiling of "the nations that are around you." All these rules, esp. those in Lev. 25, seem to be tied directly to Israel's cultic status. That status no longer exists for any nation on earth. 

Just I'm not sure how you can make a broad, sweeping statement that the NT does not "overthrow" all this social order. The social order applied only to Israel, unless of course you want to argue that the Hittites or Amorites were permitted to possess Israelite slave but not slaves of their own people.


----------



## AdamM (Dec 10, 2004)

> How does one become a slave, I wonder?



People can become slaves due to lack of payment of debts owed and the bible allows for that. 



> but I gather from your questions that it doesn't really matter since the Christian master's duty, according to you, is to release his slave



If the slave was gotten via man-stealing, yes a Christian master has a duty to release the slave and help seek justice (in the civil and criminal areas) against the criminals who kidnapped the slave. Just because obeying God is tough in a culture, or runs against the grain, in no way excuses us from the obligation to do so. 



> Paul did not instruct Philemon to free Onesimus but to receive him again into the former relationship only requiring him to exercise Christian charity as one brother to another. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that Onesimus became a slave willingly.



Again, I don't see where we can assume that Onesimus was a slave due to man-stealing. He may well have owed Philemon a debt beyond the money he stole.

I think the issues are still unaddressed, is it ok for a Christian to be the direct beneficiary of man-stealing? Is a Christian under an obligation to pay those who perform work for him a fair wage? 

The slave system in the South was a massive criminal enterprise and I don't see how we can as Christians can do anything but condemn it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Exodus 21, Leviticus 25, Philemon and Ephesians 6 all address the institution of slavery. The institution itself is not unique to Israel. Scripture does not teach that slavery was abolished like the ceremonial laws of Israel. Master and slaves are specifically instructed by Paul not to renounce their positions but to exercise charity toward superiors and inferiors. Egalitarianism teaches that this sort of social order was abolished by the NT God of love, but there is nothing in Scripture upon which to base that argument. A difference is made between God's people and those who are not God's people, and in the 19th century men like Dabney and Thornwell understood that Christian Americans were standing in the place of Hebrews towards foreign soujourners/slaves with respect to how African slaves should be treated. Let me re-emphasize that no one I know advocates a return to the institution of slavery. But slavery as an institution per se is not condemned by Scripture and so we should be careful to condemn abuses of the institution rather than the institution itself.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> People can become slaves due to lack of payment of debts owed and the bible allows for that.



So you admit at least that one form of slavery can be beneficial to a social order?



> If the slave was gotten via man-stealing, yes a Christian master has a duty to release the slave and help seek justice (in the civil and criminal areas) against the criminals who kidnapped the slave. Just because obeying God is tough in a culture, or runs against the grain, in no way excuses us from the obligation to do so.



I will agree with you that it is better to free the slave--and I would, if it were me and were in the slave's best interest--but I would like to see Scripture first before making absolute pronouncements.





> Again, I don't see where we can assume that Onesimus was a slave due to man-stealing. He may well have owed Philemon a debt beyond the money he stole.[



This point is moot: we are basing our arguments off theoretical situations that we cannot know.





> The slave system in the South was a massive criminal enterprise and I don't see how we can as Christians can do anything but condemn it.



When was the African slave trade outlawed? I forgot. I will condemn the man-stealing--let us start with modern-day African warlords--I will not condemn a social order for a practice which less than 10% of the population upheld. By the way, refer to the WLC on the fifth commandment, especially the part on the duties of inferiors to superiors.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2004)

And of course, there is that irrascible document, the Constitution, upholding slavery---(BTW, I am no longer the fervent constitutionalist I once was--The Constitution does not acknowledge King Jesus)--



> 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted*, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.



http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am13


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > How does one become a slave, I wonder?
> ...



Buying a slave did not make a Southern Christian master the "direct beneficiary" of man-stealing. The man-stealing was done primarily by Africans. They, along with Yankee slave traders, were the direct beneficiaries. Southern Christian masters took a bad situation and made it better. They were not under any obligation to free slaves although many did. They were under an obligation from Scriptural teachings in the Old and New Testaments to treat their slaves honorably. That meant feeding and housing them, providing them during times of illness, and other such means of support. Hence, the Southern Christian master was not getting "something for nothing." On the contrary, it was expensive to own a slave, which is why 90% of Southerners did not. I grant that the slave trade was sinful, but I do not conceed that the institution of slavery in America was sinful per se. However, if left to its own devices, the institution would have and should have ended on its own.

Here's what Dabney had to say on the subject from his _Defense of Virginia and the South_:




> But it may be said, that if the government of Virginia was opposed to the African slave trade, her people purchased more of its victims than those of any other colony; and the aphorism may be quoted against them, that the receiver is as guilty as the thief. This is rarely true in the case of individuals, and when applied to communities, it is notoriously false. All States contain a large number of irresponsible persons. The character of a free people as a whole should be estimated by that of its corporate acts, in which the common will is expressed. The individuals who purchased slaves of the traders were doubtless actuated by various motives. Many persuaded themselves that, as they were already enslaved, and without their agency, and as their refusal to purchase them would have no effect whatever to procure their restoration to their own country and to liberty, they might become their owners, without partaking in the wrong of which they were the victims. Many were prompted by genuine compassion, because they saw that to buy the miserable creatures was the only practicable way in their reach to rescue them from their pitiful condition; for tradition testifies that often when the captives were exposed in long ranks upon the shore, near their floating prisons, for the inspection of purchasers, they besought the planters and their wives to buy them, and testified an extravagant joy and gratitude at the event.



[Edited on 10-12-2004 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2004)

If anyone wants to buy Steve Wilkins lectures on "The Revolution of 1861" for $25, just email me. I will cover the shipping.

Here is another good audio clip:
http://www.reformed-theology.org/realaudio/


----------



## AdamM (Dec 10, 2004)

> Buying a slave did not make a Southern Christian master the "direct beneficiary" of man-stealing.



If there be no man-stealing, there be no slave for the Southern Christian to buy. Certainly seems like a direct benefit to me, unless we want to claim all those victims of man-stealing would have packed up and headed to the New World anyway just to have the opportunity to auction themselves off as slaves. Stolen property isn´t made clean simply because it passes through a few intermediaries. 



> The man-stealing was done primarily by Africans. They, along with Yankee slave traders, were the direct beneficiaries.



The fact that wicked Africans and Yankees were upstream in the crime of man-stealing does in no way exonerate the slave owners. They were receiving stolen property. They should have ALL repented of their evil and sought justice for the victims. Again, just because a crack head breaks into your car and does the actual ripping off of your radio in no way makes the fence less guilty or the person who knowingly receives the stolen property. 



> Southern Christian masters took a bad situation and made it better. They were not under any obligation to free slaves although many did.



Some of my favorite theologians are of the "œSouthern" variety, but on the issue of slavery they were sadly blind to the sin of their culture. The slave system was built on man-stealing. It all started with an African man or woman was kidnapped, separated from their family. I have a hunch most them like us, would have preferred to stay with their families and "œtough" it out.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2004)

Adam,
Do you have a grudge against the South? Despite your charges of us exonerating Southern slave owners, you are doing the same thing with those as equally guilty. Anyway, what was the North's alternative? Violent abolitionism in the form of bloody revolution seen in Turner and Brown? The North did not have a viable alternative, either. So your charges of Southerners deliberately perpetuating a wicked system are groundless.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Adam,
> Do you have a grudge against the South? Despite your charges of us exonerating Southern slave owners, you are doing the same thing with those as equally guilty. Anyway, what was the North's alternative? Violent abolitionism in the form of bloody revolution seen in Turner and Brown? The North did not have a viable alternative, either. So your charges of Southerners deliberately perpetuating a wicked system are groundless.



Actually Jacob,

The opposite has been the case. I think Adam has stated several times matters of respect for the South. The irony is that if you listen to most who espouse the Wilkins cause, you would think that every Northerner was a heathen Unitarian who eats children.

There were plenty of godly Northerners, and plenty in the abolitionist movement who would do nothing like Brown's tactics. Wilberforce changed England's view on slavery without recorse to such methods, and it might have been the case had patience (on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line) ruled the day.


----------



## AdamM (Dec 10, 2004)

> Adam,
> Do you have a grudge against the South? Despite your charges of us exonerating Southern slave owners, you are doing the same thing with those as equally guilty. Anyway, what was the North's alternative? Violent abolitionism in the form of bloody revolution seen in Turner and Brown? The North did not have a viable alternative, either. So your charges of Southerners deliberately perpetuating a wicked system are groundless.



Jacob, I wouldn't' for a second say that Yankees were innocent in the matter of slavery or that Northern culture was anything great. Opposing slavery as it was practiced in the US in no way implies that I support the whole agenda of the Northerners. I am just calling man-stealing a sin, no matter where on the food chain the people involved resided. I think the whole episode of slavery in the US was ugly and no doubt Africans, Northerners and Southerners all share guilt in the matter. 

What I am objecting to is that the drive by some to romanticize a period in time, that no doubt had many good things going on in it, can easily lead us to call something that was a great evil good. I think we can apprecaite the great Southern Presbyterians, while acknowledging that on the point of defending slavery as it was practiced in the US, they were wrong and pray that Christians 200 years in future grant us the same grace for our blind spots.

[Edited on 11-12-2004 by AdamM]


----------



## pastorway (Dec 10, 2004)

*The following post as edited by pastorway is meant for the purpose of humor only:*




> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> If anyone wants to buy Steve Wilkins for $25, just email me. I will cover the shipping.






Now that is funny!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

If slavery wasn't sinful as an institution per se for the Hebrews (and it wasn't), there is no reason to conclude that slavery as an institution per se in America was sinful either. To indict one is to indict the other. 

That said, this issue has split Presbyterians for 200 years and it is doubtful that we will resolve the matter here. As I see it, the principles involved are egalitarianism vs. Biblical societal roles. Forced abolition harmed the black race more than slavery did in my view. I stand with Dabney and Thornwell who testified against man-stealing and abuses within the institution but upheld the Biblical sanction of slavery as an institution and it's practice in the South in particular. For us, it is an historical/principial question; for them it was reality. The war over this issue isn't over, obviously. But good men have disagreed in the past and will disagree in the future. May God nevertheless be glorified among his saints.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 10, 2004)

Just to inform you Im a slave to Jesus Christ he decides where Ill reside in the future tense. Either way to God be the glory !!


----------



## Peter (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> You just can´t make the practice of man-stealing acceptable under any circumstances. It is a sin and should not be defended by anyone. The duty of the Christian in that era was to see that seek immediate end to practice, to see that that the perpetrators were punished and the victims restored. Furthermore the Christian slave owner after repenting for his participation in an enterprise that violated God´s law owed his slaves a fair and just wage for their past labors.
> 
> If you knowingly buy a stolen car radio you're just as guilty as the punk who ripped it out the dashboard and it does not matter that you think your car is better location for the radio or that it will receive so much better care in your car then it would have in the original owners car.





Onesimus was returned a freeman.

Phil
15For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
16Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?


----------



## Peter (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> If slavery wasn't sinful as an institution per se for the Hebrews (and it wasn't), there is no reason to conclude that slavery as an institution per se in America was sinful either. To indict one is to indict the other.
> 
> That said, this issue has split Presbyterians for 200 years and it is doubtful that we will resolve the matter here. As I see it, the principles involved are egalitarianism vs. Biblical societal roles. Forced abolition harmed the black race more than slavery did in my view. I stand with Dabney and Thornwell who testified against man-stealing and abuses within the institution but upheld the Biblical sanction of slavery as an institution and it's practice in the South in particular. For us, it is an historical/principial question; for them it was reality. The war over this issue isn't over, obviously. But good men have disagreed in the past and will disagree in the future. May God nevertheless be glorified among his saints.



Hebrew "slavery" condemns American slavery. Hebrew indentured servitude of a brother was for 6 years, negro slavery perpetual. Consider me an egalitarian on this issue, I believe God made of one blood ALL the nations of the earth (Acts17), b/c the color of someones skin is different doesnt give us the right to enslave them.


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 10, 2004)

Peter absolutely NO ONE is advocating racism or ethic opression on an institutional level. Negro slavery was not perpetual in every slave-owner relationship. Your comments show a great deal of ignorance concerning the subject in my opinion.


----------



## Peter (Dec 10, 2004)

Enlighten me Ian.


----------



## Peter (Dec 10, 2004)

How many negro slaves were released after 6yrs? Was not slavery justified by many b/c blacks were viewed as inferior and as some fulfilment of the Hamtic curse? I dont think anyone on the board is racist, but since the issue of race was brought up, ive offered my thoughts.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 10, 2004)

If I steal a car and keep up the maintainance, is that OK? Or if I break every speed law, but keep up the oil, it that OK? I just don't see how there is anything justifiable about Southern slavery.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2004)

If you steal my car, I would rather you take good care of it. Seriously, I probably need to resign from this thread. I have been in battle mode all week with finals. I have had to deal with a few tough situations with people I love. I took out some of my anger on this thread (hopefully I disguised it well). Even now, I am forcing my self to breathe evenly. I am not mad at any on this thread but I need to spend my energies on other threads. Nevertheless, I did benefit from it. Andrew, I tip my hat to you, Sir.

With Malice Towards None,

Jacob

P.S. That Lincoln quote will haunt me to night. He didn't mean it!!!!!!!

[Edited on 11-12-2004 by Draught Horse]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 11, 2004)

What about all this manstealing thing? God sold Isreal into slavery. I am not pro slavery but thought this ought to be discussed. Providence being a doctrine we all love, you would think God was a little behind some of this historical narrative we are all up in arms about. 

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## FrozenChosen (Dec 11, 2004)

Anyone who thinks that I was trying to say that our pastors and ministers should engage the culture are misinterpreting what I said. I am not guilty of suggesting that the Gospel retreat from the culture. I am disgusted by evangelical Christianity's sacred/secular dichotomy.

I am saying that it isn't very prudent for men with responsibilities to congregations to be putting things like this out. 

How does a book with a different view of a horrible institution that existed *150 years ago* speak to the culture _today_? That's my point.

And I think when we paint the university as ultra-liberal, we paint with a brush that is far too broad. Perhaps it's because I'm attending a university in Alabama that the situation doesn't seem as grave. Perhaps if we didn't seem to be so hateful of the university we might be able to, I don't know, speak to the culture more? I am not saying that our universities deserve bragging rights, or that we lack poor professors, but I am saying that there are some amazing professors out that who deserve to be heard.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 11, 2004)

I was speaking of my university, to an extent


----------



## ChristianTrader (Dec 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by FrozenChosen_
> I am saying that it isn't very prudent for men with responsibilities to congregations to be putting things like this out.
> 
> How does a book with a different view of a horrible institution that existed *150 years ago* speak to the culture _today_? That's my point.



From Orwell's 1984: "Who controls the past, controls the future".

CT


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 12, 2004)

Peter,

Looking back through the thread you are the individual who seems to have most latched onto some kind of racial issue. Regarding slaves release date, are you basing that on the Jubilee year? Do you think that the Jewish calendar is still in effect? Curious.

Where abuses found in the majority of examples in the southern slave institution? Do you know what groups used those Hamitic justifications? How widespread was their influence?

Look. On one hand you have "pro-confederate" people or whatever you want to call it. They're saying that the South was misunderstood and that slavery was corrupt in the South but not to the extent that the Northern press and abolitionists would have described it. Steve Wilkins is the first to acknowledge the South was blind in its glossing over the errors within the slave institution. Secondly we have the the "slavery is EVIL" group. They will accept no nuances within southern slavery. They are not interested in hearing about false reports, alleged exaggerations concerning the South. THey will not entertain the possiblilty that there were elements within the liberal press that fabricated or exaggerated slave conditions. They will not hear the testimony of Black slaves in the South who contradict the modern "slavery is EVIL" view of the South. I have a hard time taking conversations seriously when people aren't trying.

Paul,

Man-stealing is wrong. Define man-stealing.


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> If I steal a car and keep up the maintainance, is that OK? Or if I break every speed law, but keep up the oil, it that OK? I just don't see how there is anything justifiable about Southern slavery.



JohnV,

This discussion is not about justifying errors! It doesn't have to be one are the other. There can be error mixed in with fidelity to God's law. 

Seriously, any honest Christian should be able to understand this. Maybe people on both sides of this issue ought to stop generalizing about "Southern slavery". All slave owners were not the same. We should be able to make differentiation. However when we do broaden the focus we should be able to allow for a varied experience within the category of "ssouthern slavery".


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 12, 2004)

Ian,
I believe that you have brought out a salient point to this discussion in defining the two basic types of response in this thread. (Not all obviously, but the preponderance). There is most definitely a well engrained bias in our culture against learning what was the real reason for that Second American Revolution - and that is what it was. Of course the Yankees and the current culture do not view it as such; but then again neither did the British in 1776 view the First American Revolution a revolution, but a rebellion. It is imperative that the real history is learned or this nation will pay in spades. We are approaching a crisis point (Schaffer called it an philosophical inevitability) between two divergent worldviews in our nation. This crisis point will erupt in some manner. It could very well lead to a 'seccession' or a Third American Revovution. 

Now before you say, 'Pshaw, that unreconstructed Alabama preacher is just a fire eater.', remember very few thought that the cultural differences between North and South coudl erupt in such a fashion in the 1830-40's when the divide began to become very apparent.

Oh, and if the Leage of the South is a hate group then I, although not a member, would have to be lumped in with them. If you want to get an idea about what many Southrons are thinking then pay Dixienet a visit and listen to the radio broadcasts. It may be encouraging to man Non-Southron Christians as well.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by FrozenChosen_
> ...



Well put, CT!


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2004)

Lawrence,
Is Dixienet even working? Everytime I go to that link, the page won't come up?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Dec 12, 2004)

@ some of you actually defending southern slavery or the 'softening' of how horrid the institution of slavery here in the US really was.

Ridiculous.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is this a complaint or a detailed argument?


----------



## FrozenChosen (Dec 12, 2004)

CT, 

That is a very good quote. I agree with it wholeheartedly. Ian, MDB, and others know that I am very committed to history, in fact a history major. So I understand what you guys are saying and I agree with you. These things do need to be researched and considered. I am not questioning that; I am questioning the researcher and whether it is one of his responsibilities as a pastor of a congregation.

With regards to the rest of the thread...I'm not sure why some Christians defend the chattel nature of American slavery. While there were many respectable slave owners who treated their slaves with dignity, being bought and sold as pieces of property on account of their skin color is certainly a grievous sin against anyone crafted in the image of God. Regardless of X treating his slaves nicely or Y treating them horribly, race-based family-destroying chattel slavery is wrong.

At the same time, I consider myself to be in more agreement with the Southern culture. The waves of the French Revolution definitely found the Northern Shores. I think it a states right to secede from an unfaithful partner in a union, after reconciliation has been tried. But every nation has their foul traits.

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by FrozenChosen]


----------



## twogunfighter (Dec 12, 2004)

Man-stealing is wrong. Slavery is only right if practiced biblically, just like sex. Southern Slavery was practiced for the most part un-biblically. Should the US be invaded by Canada because of abortion? 

The main problem with any argument over the issue of slavery is the natural tendency to get over-emotional about your side. 

And.......

To what LawrenceU said.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 12, 2004)

What about the white slavery that existed in the colonies and the good ol' USofA. Some of my Scottish forbears were here as slaves; sold by Lord Donald when the price of wool made it unprofitable. That along with a cowing to the Crown of England to 'cleanse the highlands'? No one really gets all that worked up about that.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> What about the white slavery that existed in the colonies and the good ol' USofA. Some of my Scottish forbears were here as slaves; sold by Lord Donald when the price of wool made it unprofitable. That along with a cowing to the Crown of England to 'cleanse the highlands'? No one really gets all that worked up about that.



I do. Along with the abuse that my forebearers received as "wops" and "polacks." Sin is rampant. Like Paul says, no one seeks God...


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Dec 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by OS_X_
> ...



Is that a stupid comment from someone being purposely insensitive to his African-American brethren since it's GARBAGE like this that continually puts a wedge between African-American and European-American believers or is it just phrased to appear like one ?

Here's a hint: this is where that 'if eating meat offends my brother' thing comes in.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 12, 2004)

This thread is done. Perhaps rather than worry about whether Wilson or Wilkins is right on this tangential issue, we should focus on the more significant issues related to justification.


----------

