# Church discipline of adulterous slave owners



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 17, 2019)

It's assumed that a number of Southern slave owners raped or otherwise committed adultery with female slaves, bringing forth illegitimate children who are also slaves.

Is there any talk among antebellum pastors or theologians about such a crime? Any talk of disciplining such offenders? Any idea how common this really was? (Any is clearly horrific but I don't know if 1%, 10%, or 40% of slave owners had slave mistresses.)


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 17, 2019)

I suppose there are church records that would answer the question. However, very few owned slaves (that was why the average southerner didn't really like the slave owners). And among those that did, and assuming they did commit adultery, church discipline presupposes a) a church that disciplines and b) that they belonged to it.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 17, 2019)

Adding to what Jacob said rich people historically have had ways of avoiding church discipline.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 17, 2019)

Sorry, but I must ask. What possible difference could / would this make for today's church? Are we going to track down the descendants of those people and alternatly punish or make reparation to them? Do we somehow become more virtuous by digging up and pointing out the sins of our forebears? I just don't get its relevance.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 17, 2019)

Only tangentially relevant to the OP, but here is an interesting observation from James Henley Thornwell on slave-marriage and slave-literacy laws.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2019)

Some baptist churches urged and even disciplined some owners when they split up husband and wife slaves, as was a common practice and pushed for not separating the family units of the slaves. 

Here is the link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14664658.2017.1278833

Adultery was hard to punish among the slaves themselves because some owners would not allow legal marriage among slaves and, if I am right, some regions did not allow this legally. And so the slaves were marrried by common custom only.

Other articles exist concerning breeding of slaves together to create stronger future slaves, a sinful practiced that was sort of the opposite of the eugenics programs of the next century.

Here is an article about sexual abuse of female slaves by white masters in the South, and several books are listed for further investigation: 

https://www.lincolncottage.org/the-loathsome-den-sexual-assault-on-the-plantation-metoo/

It seems the church was largely silent. They were property and treated as such.

And YES, this matters.

It matters due to (1) History, (2) A good case study in how to apply theology to practical everday ethics (or NOT to apply it and fail as the Church), (3) and it gives us a wake up call to do better in the future.

Our faith should change the society in which we live. 

Nobody has mentioned reparations, but history is history and we should dig as deep as possible into all aspects of it. To suppress any aspect of it is to do the same as the Leftists who are removing statues.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 17, 2019)

Also, this extract from the _Southern Presbyterian Review_ is particularly condemnatory: James A. Lyon on slavery and marriage in the Confederate States.

As much as I despise the Woker-than-thou agenda, do not make the mistake of apologising for the evils of the Old South. It will only add fuel to the SJW fire.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Also, this extract from the Southern Presbyterian Review is particularly condemnatory: James A. Lyon on slavery and marriage in the Confederate States.
> 
> As much as I despise the Woker-than-thou agenda, do not make the mistake of apologising for the evils of the Old South. It will only add fuel to the SJW fire.



Most theological errors develop as an over-reaction to some aspect lacking in the church. Folks are getting woke because others falsely believe our theology has nothing to do with justice in society. The false error of social justice is best undone by true biblical justice and advocating for the poor and needy.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 17, 2019)

*Definition of bigot*


*: *a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
I think some of you need to apply the mirror to yourselves.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 17, 2019)

I have no reason to believe the question was anything other than what was plainly asked. I wish I new more. The history of church discipline isn’t well researched as far as I know other than extreme examples like witch and heretic burnings.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 17, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Here is the link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14664658.2017.1278833



BTW, I published an article about Frederick Douglass and Belfast Abolitionism in the same journal (mine appeared in 2017).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover (Mar 17, 2019)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> It's assumed that a number of Southern slave owners raped or otherwise committed adultery with female slaves, bringing forth illegitimate children who are also slaves.
> 
> Is there any talk among antebellum pastors or theologians about such a crime? Any talk of disciplining such offenders? Any idea how common this really was? (Any is clearly horrific but I don't know if 1%, 10%, or 40% of slave owners had slave mistresses.)



Disciplining dead people. Now there's a novel idea.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Mar 17, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Disciplining dead people. Now there's a novel idea.


Well, I guess that's what purgatory is for

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Disciplining dead people. Now there's a novel idea.


I am pretty sure he meant to ask whether there was any talk at that time to be found in church minutes or theological tomes of that time about discipline for such cases. And yes there is, among the baptists (article is linked in my first reply above, but unfortunately is not free).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 17, 2019)

This is an interesting thread. My direct family line on my dad’s side come directly from an adulterous relationship. I have zero information on his religious life. Apparently she was a housemaid that he eventually purchased a second property for. He split his time between the two houses. I took after my mom’s side in looks.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> BTW, I published an article about Frederick Douglass and Belfast Abolitionism in the same journal (mine appeared in 2017).


Why aren't you sharing more of this stuff that you write with us, brother! You're holding out on us!


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 18, 2019)

Wow! I said nothing - and meant to say nothing - about SJW, tracking down descendants of these sins, disciplining dead people, or even picking out men who perhaps should have been disciplined but weren't! My question was specifically curiosity about whether slave owners' sins of this nature were ever addressed by the Southern church at the time, either with Church discipline or with writings of the Southern church.

You're hearing this from a descendant of Confederate soldiers, who loves the South for the most part and appreciates having been raised in the South. However I've never heard if this "open secret" was ever dealt with.

Pergamum, if I could give you a hundred "likes" I'd gladly do so.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## chuckd (Mar 18, 2019)

I think it's a great thread and question. Did the church discipline open secrets with significant cultural implications & questions of the time? It would be relevant to today for topics such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 18, 2019)

[Decided to leave my post up anyway as I originally wrote it - To be utterly clear, I don't post with a spirit of controversy, or with any particular church in mind]

Coming from someone who pretty much doesn't follow developments in SJM, but in response to the question, Does this even matter, or does it make any difference to ask about these things?

At the least, God has said that He visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. That was a threat leveled against the covenant people. Sins covered and glossed over in the past may still be causes of judgments today, even in the church. That's great reason to ask good questions about the behavior of our churches and denominations in the past. And, "Judgment begins in the house of God." In any case, the actions of those in the past do still influence people and their current situations. In the case of slavery, many begin life with social and economic handicaps. So, whether or not we acknowledge those sins, somebody today is paying for them. Even if reparations are not possible, we may still avenge our sins by seeing their ugliness, the disaster they cause, mourning them, and being affected by them in such a way that we will guard against such sins ourselves, and repent of any similar sins we are now engaged in. In the case of slavery issues from the 1800's, we still learn that even the church can be blinded by cultural norms and even augment the damage that the devil and his kingdom do in the world.

Also, the world is good at digging up these old skeletons for us, and they are usually not impartial in their assessments, especially if we have ignored them. Might as well beat them to it.


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 18, 2019)

Which slave owning "Church" are you speaking about. Abraham's, Issac's, Jacob's, Moses', David's, Philemon's, and historically the whole world's. Why are you singling out the Southern Presbyterians? Using the continuing punishment for sins of the fathers theory, how should you direct God's wrath? Are the factory owners and the sweat shops of the Northern States and England post Wilberforce, who abused the female "employees" in their backrooms exempt from this study? Are we only focusing on the black slaves or are we including the Native Americans, the Asians, and the Irish. How about the owners of the Slavers, who by the way were all from the New England Colonies and Puritans? Did they have their way with the picks of the crops? Maybe God missed. Maybe he passed judgment on the Northern Congregationalists. Instead He zapped the congregational abolitionists with Unitarian Universalists, and by mistake made the South the bible belt. Wow he really showed those wicked Presbyterians.

The OP had one thing right, "It's assumed". Yea it's assumed that evil men have passed through every Church unscathed but you guys do as much damage assuming what you do not know, nor will ever know. What a bunch of self righteous bigots. I'm done here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 18, 2019)

/Moderating/
Bill, that is hardly appropriate behavior or language and sets a 
terrible example. You need to apologize. Also, everyone else is bad as a shut down mechanism to a subject of discussion is actually the progressives tactic of late (cf. Dems in congress). 

As to this question, folks, prove the answer to the question if the data is there, otherwise, settle for "don't know" and close this one out. Another beat down of the old Southern Church just because one can is not really that edifying.

Also, the moderators are severely hobbled with the loss of Patrick and you have no idea how disheartening it is to see a return to "business as usual" in less than a day.
/end moderating/

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 18, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Which slave owning "Church" are you speaking about. Abraham's, Issac's, Jacob's, Moses', David's, Philemon's, and historically the whole world's. Why are you singling out the Southern Presbyterians? Using the continuing punishment for sins of the fathers theory, how should you direct God's wrath? Are the factory owners and the sweat shops of the Northern States and England post Wilberforce, who abused the female "employees" in their backrooms exempt from this study? Are we only focusing on the black slaves or are we including the Native Americans, the Asians, and the Irish. How about the owners of the Slavers, who by the way were all from the New England Colonies and Puritans? Did they have their way with the picks of the crops? Maybe God missed. Maybe he passed judgment on the Northern Congregationalists. Instead He zapped the congregational abolitionists with Unitarian Universalists, and by mistake made the South the bible belt. Wow he really showed those wicked Presbyterians.
> 
> The OP had one thing right, "It's assumed". Yea it's assumed that evil men have passed through every Church unscathed but you guys do as much damage assuming what you do not know, nor will ever know. What a bunch of self righteous bigots. I'm done here.



Bill,

Later I can answer your reply point by point. I think you make some good points. 

WHAT-ABOUT-ISMS: I just recently heard the phrase "what-about-ism." What is a Whataboutism? That is when one sin is mentioned and then somebody mentions other sins or injustices. 

It can be annoying sometimes, and sometimes can make a valid point.

For example, when liberals mention illegal immigrants without health care, Conservatives often reply back with, "What about War Vets who don't get adequate healthcare?" 

Or when Conservatives mention being Pro-life, then the Liberals (and some Libertarians) often reply with, "What About all the Pro-life hawks who never met a war they didn't like? Is that also Pro-life?"

A Whataboutism can become either a valid point or a slick rhetorical device. It diverts the issue. It enables you to choose the field of battle. 

And I concur with you that history and the media does highlight some sins and downplays other sins. They have set the narrative and it is right and proper to resent how they set the narrative in an injust way so often.

For example, when apartheid is mentioned, I think "What About" the Commies and the sins of Mandela and others who "necklaced" so many people and murdered them with flaming tires in the streets.

Or for example, Hitler killed his 6 millions, but Stalin killed his 60 millions...but why is one viewed as more evil than another? Because of bias, of course. Fascism is in the cross-hairs because the media is controlled by Socialists, even though Socialists have killed more people in the 20th-Century than Fascism.

We see Whataboutisms happening this very week. A crazy guy shoots Muslims in New Zealand. But what about the thousands killed by Muslim crazies in Africa? It is both valid and a diversion at the same time.

So, you are engaging in a Whataboutism. We all do. It is a common tactic of debate and discussion. 

So later on (or in a new thread) I think it will be very profitable to speak of all these other side-issues you mention above. Each one is important. 

The near-wholesale heresy of many northern denominations is important to discuss. Though they rightly condemned Southern Chattel slavery, they failed in defending the basics of salvation. Or the fact that many slaveowners are now in heaven and many abolitionists now in hell. Or that the word SLAVE came from the same root as Slav due to the massive slave-taking from the white race, often by brown Barbary pirates. 

These are all needful and somewhat related topics.

But they should not be used to silence this present conversation about this specific OP in particular. 

Let's thoroughly explore THIS issue, and then move on and explore THOSE OTHER related topics you mention above.

All cultures are sinful, especially when they have power over others. Just ask the Dahomey's in Africa who supplied the whole Western world with slaves through wars committed just for that purpose and became richer off slaving than any white master ever did. But this OP is not about the evil Dahomeys.

I don't think you should "bow out" of this conversation. I like talking to you. And I agree almost wholly with you. Let's just keep the conversation cool-headed and cover one topic at a time.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## ZackF (Mar 18, 2019)

chuckd said:


> I think it's a great thread and question. Did the church discipline open secrets with significant cultural implications & questions of the time? It would be relevant to today for topics such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.



Remove any modifiers to the word slavery except for ‘modern’ and the conversation would be just as fruitful and less controversial. 

Did Quakers and/or Mennonite/Amish ‘shun’ for slavery? There may be some records there. Other than social ostracism I don’t know that Methodists or Anglican’s disciplined much at all. There are the Covenanters of course. 

I restate my case that someone needs to write a book on the history of church discipline. Save the subject from being lost on an overly tread few, albeit horrific examples. 

Maybe I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth. There is also the point that needs to be made about confidentiality. Maybe it shouldn’t be handled entirely like JFK assassination files where once enough time has passed its all fine and dandy for the public to see. Does every believer need the sins he’s repented over to his session perused by his great great grandchildren and their peers? Would we want that of ourselves?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 18, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> /Moderating/
> Bill, that is hardly appropriate behavior or language and sets a
> terrible example. You need to apologize. Also, everyone else is bad as a shut down mechanism to a subject of discussion is actually the progressives tactic of late (cf. Dems in congress).
> 
> ...


Remove me from PB.

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 18, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Remove me from PB.



May the Lord bless you and keep you.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 18, 2019)

I will say the link about Thornwell were excellent, as is the rest of the info on that site. Thanks Daniel! This answered a related question to my OP. I'm happy to read Covenanter material also.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 18, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Remove me from PB.


Before you go can you tell us how to stay in contact, brother. I would not want to part company but would like to stay in contact and relationship. I appreciate you and do not want to see you go. God bless.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 18, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Remove me from PB.



Do you seriously think it wise to leave a relationship with a brother in Christ unreconciled? I'd much rather be reconciled. I'm sorry if my message seemed targeted--it wasn't. I don't mean it as a scathe against the Southern Presbyterians or anyone else, though I'm conscious the church in general did not always act right in that time, men whom I respect and admire anyway. I do not like the idea of you leaving on this note. We are in Christ. Let's make this right.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 2 | Amen 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 18, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Before you go can you tell us how to stay in contact, brother. I would not want to part company but would like to stay in contact and relationship. I appreciate you and do not want to see you go. God bless.


@Bill Duncan I’m also stating this, too. You have my number via message. Please, let’s stay in touch.


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 18, 2019)

Harley said:


> Do you seriously think it wise to leave a relationship with a brother in Christ unreconciled? I'd much rather be reconciled. I'm sorry if my message seemed targeted--it wasn't. I don't mean it as a scathe against the Southern Presbyterians or anyone else, though I'm conscious the church in general did not always act right in that time, men whom I respect and admire anyway. I do not like the idea of you leaving on this note. We are in Christ. Let's make this right.


I too made a similar mistake not too long after making my PB account. I have since returned and sought to be reconciled. I sent a PM to Bill and shared my own failure. I encouraged him to stay. I hope he does.


----------



## ArminianOnceWas (Mar 19, 2019)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Sorry, but I must ask. What possible difference could / would this make for today's church? Are we going to track down the descendants of those people and alternatly punish or make reparation to them? Do we somehow become more virtuous by digging up and pointing out the sins of our forebears? I just don't get its relevance.



My observations have been that most in the Reformed camp love to keep their history books very near their Bibles. We feel a conviction to point out theological and social errors of the past, Pelagianism and Catholicism just two examples. However, my feeling here is that the impression for many is that history all of a sudden loses its relevancy when applied to our own closer darker past. 

Do we discuss historical theology and church history merely because of our interest or because of the lessons learned from the past? If we do because of more than just academic interest, then why wouldn't the sins of our forebearers be a relevant discussion?

Does it make us too uncomfortable? Is it much easier to look at the sins of Catholicism and Anglicanism? Does it make us more virtuous to try to forget the mistakes of Presbyterian history?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 19, 2019)

Well I think some just don't think there is a need to be apologising for the past here, especially when it is only one very specific aspect of slavery which is being focused on and brought up as something requiring us- generations after the fact- to repent and make reparations for. Are we asking muslims in our nations to make reparations for muslim enslavement of whites (btw, muslims are still practising slavery throughout their countries. I know of no white nation which still uses slavery); are we asking the Jews to make reparations for their extensive involvement in the slave trade? Are we asking blacks to make reparations for their part in selling other blacks to the slave traders? I don't hear these calls... That is because this discussion is not about slavery, it is about punishing _white Christians_ and only about this. We should not play this game. The race mongers and leftists will never be satisfied. We should ignore them and purge them from our churches.

And it should be noted that whatever the rights and wrongs of slavery, it was the _Whites _who ended the Atlantic slavetrade and it was _White Christians_ in America who fought and died over slavery. Whatever reparations were due for slavery they have more than been paid. If people today cannot express gratitude for the sacrifice of those who died then they best be silent.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 19, 2019)

Of course, no one here is asking anybody for reparations or requiring anyone to apologize for the past.

Unless you are aware of an ulterior motive, the OP was simply asking for factual data about events in the past. To assign worse motives than that without cause is not charitable.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 19, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Of course, no one here is asking anybody for reparations or requiring anyone to apologize for the past.
> 
> Unless you are aware of an ulterior motive, the OP was simply asking for factual data about events in the past. To assign worse motives than that without cause is not charitable.



I'm not making any comment on the OP. I also agree that there is nothing wrong with a discussion about the history of discipline in the church. I think the concern expressed over this particular question is why this issue above others is raised. Unfortunately that query has the downside of perhaps imputing ulterior/malicious motives to the person who raised it especially because of the current context in American churches and society. I'm happy to accept there were no ulterior motives whilst also being suspcious why this issue would receive more examination than others.

As to the original question my thinking would be that adultery is wrong; extra-marital sex is wrong; abuse of one's position of power is wrong. Any or all of these sins would be deserving of discipline. I think the slavery dimension is actually irrelevant here. Now, were some slave owners who were also members of a church not disciplined because of their position of society? It wouldn't surprise me one bit if that were the case because it is found throughout the history of the church. Respect of persons is an all too human failing. There would probably have been an added element of scandal/embarrassment because of the factor of racial intermingling but again, I don't think the slavery factor is relevant.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 19, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> ... I think the concern expressed over this particular question is *why this issue above others is raised*. ... I'm happy to accept there were no ulterior motives whilst also being suspcious why *this issue would receive more examination* than others.



I'm sorry, I just don't see the it in this thread. How is this issue being raised above others? How is this issue receiving more examination than others?

It really seems like some people are projecting biases here. I hope I am wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 19, 2019)

I certainly mean no disparage to anyone, only produce thoughts on what benefit could come from an inquiry like this, and I'm content to leave it there. And if I think anyone in the past did wrong, I'm sure that some will look at me decades from now and comment on what things I was blind to, be astonished I didn't see it, and they'll be right. For myself, I'm angered that I do not sigh and weep for the abominations in our own day as I should.

Looking all things over, we've lost a brother, and Chris has already indicated that it's adding sorrow upon sorrow to have to keep an eye on a volatile conversation. Might we do well to act in favor of the well-being of the admins and delay this discussion to another time? Not drop it, but delay it. That's what I intend to do, and my apologies for my part in adding sorrow to them, if that's been the effect, though I did not intend it.

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 19, 2019)

Harley said:


> I certainly mean no disparage to anyone, only produce thoughts on what benefit could come from an inquiry like this, and I'm content to leave it there. And if I think anyone in the past did wrong, I'm sure that some will look at me decades from now and comment on what things I was blind to, be astonished I didn't see it, and they'll be right. For myself, I'm angered that I do not sigh and weep for the abominations in our own day as I should.
> 
> Looking all things over, we've lost a brother, and Chris has already indicated that it's adding sorrow upon sorrow to have to keep an eye on a volatile conversation. Might we do well to act in favor of the well-being of the admins and delay this discussion to another time? Not drop it, but delay it. That's what I intend to do, and my apologies for my part in adding sorrow to them, if that's been the effect, though I did not intend it.



That might be a good idea. Just to restate: I'm not imputing malicious motives to anyone here. The question just got caught up with bigger issues, is my take.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 19, 2019)

Alright, I have been trying to put together a response unrelated to answering the OP (strictly speaking). I got really busy at work today and I hope it is not too late. @Bill Duncan responded to my PM and filled me in on what was underlying his frustration. With some extra info from @Bill Duncan and in re-reading some of the post here, I would like to state the following:

1. @NaphtaliPress



NaphtaliPress said:


> /Moderating/
> Also, the moderators are severely hobbled with the loss of Patrick and you have no idea how disheartening it is to see a return to "business as usual" in less than a day.
> /end moderating/



Chris, my heart goes out to you and the other Moderators. You all put in so much work that most users (including myself) will never know of. I was not really close to Patrick at all, but even in my short stint on PB, I was blessed to experience Patrick's wisdom, patience, and discernment. Your crew has lost someone close to your hearts and though we know he is now in the sweetest and most beautiful place he ever has been, it can still be painful for those left behind. Patrick now has no pain, no sorrow, no hunger, no stress, and is worshipping our Lord in ways you and I can't imagine. However this can still seem bittersweet for those who will no longer know earthy fellowship with our brother. Hold your head high my friend and place your eyes on the legacy Patrick has left behind. May we all reflect on our post in this thread and others asking, "Would my Lord be honored by this?". In the case of Patrick, he has given no small amount of post that can be answered with a resounding "YES". For use Sabbatarians, let us rejoice for now Patrick knows the eternal rest we try and scratch at each and every Lord's Day (Hebrews 4). He knows the rest that was promised.

2. @PointyHaired Calvinist


PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Wow! I said nothing - and meant to say nothing - about SJW, tracking down descendants of these sins, disciplining dead people, or even picking out men who perhaps should have been disciplined but weren't! My question was specifically curiosity about whether slave owners' sins of this nature were ever addressed by the Southern church at the time, either with Church discipline or with writings of the Southern church.
> 
> You're hearing this from a descendant of Confederate soldiers, who loves the South for the most part and appreciates having been raised in the South. However I've never heard if this "open secret" was ever dealt with.
> 
> Pergamum, if I could give you a hundred "likes" I'd gladly do so.


Johnathan,
I don't read any ill intent in any of your post here. Admittedly, I feel it to be an innocent (and interesting) inquiry. However, even though you did not intend offense, @Bill Duncan has clearly been offended (rightly or wrongly I will not weigh in here, but I do agree with @NaphtaliPress 's moderation). I think you have rightly expressed that you meant no ill-intent or "wokism" in your OP, and I believe you. Just things to chew on is all. Below you will be able to read what @Bill Duncan expressed to me in PM, which he gave me permission to try and convey to the group here. I wish @Bill Duncan would have shared this interesting story with us on this thread as it would have given more context to his frustrations.

3. @Bill Duncan said the below in the PM to me:


Bill Duncan said:


> Thank you for messaging me. I appreciate your wisdom and advice, but my disposition is not such that I can remain silent when my family is defamed. I will always fight to preserve name of those who cannot fight for themselves. My heritage is slave holding, southern Godly men. My great great grandfather, William H. Duncan, a Methodist circuit rider, and Col. in the South Carolina militia, wounded with the Army of Northern Va. 1863, and was a victim of Sherman's march to the sea. His slaves voluntarily stayed behind in the face of the federal advance and after fierce torture would not divulge the whereabouts of their master's hiding place, nor where they themselves had hidden the families valuables. This was the typical response of all those in the area of the Barnwell County, SC. With the plantation destroyed, upon his return, the slaves dug up the chest where the valuables were stored. I still have that cypress chest as a memorial to those christian men who risked their own lives and endured the lash for the love of their master. I didn't get that from history books but from my namesake's journal. He loved them so much he sought to preserve the honor of their selfless act. This is love that you should give your life for another. That is why I will fight that war continually, but PB is not the place to do it and I can't not do it. Therefore I must move on. Satan used the church to start a war that he though would destroy a Christian stronghold and stop the advance of the gospel to the descents of Ham. Though in a sense it did stop the planting of seed by the white man, the black man took the Gospel to their own. God's ways are past finding out.



Let's not argue whether or not the above is valid justification for @Bill Duncan 's responses on this thread. However, we should all see that something really rubbed him wrong hear. Yes, he should have been more clear on the thread as to who he was responding too, and why he was so upset, but he failed to do this.

I am not defending anyone, but rather trying to provide helpful insight and info. As it stands now, I would rather the argumentative post be deleted, which may help this thread continue on without the drama. That however, is not my call.

It is @Bill Duncan 's decision to leave for good or return. Many of us have already encouraged him to stay. I hope he does.

Reactions: Edifying 4


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 20, 2019)

Harley said:


> I certainly mean no disparage to anyone, only produce thoughts on what benefit could come from an inquiry like this, and I'm content to leave it there. And if I think anyone in the past did wrong, I'm sure that some will look at me decades from now and comment on what things I was blind to, be astonished I didn't see it, and they'll be right. For myself, I'm angered that I do not sigh and weep for the abominations in our own day as I should.
> 
> Looking all things over, we've lost a brother, and Chris has already indicated that it's adding sorrow upon sorrow to have to keep an eye on a volatile conversation. Might we do well to act in favor of the well-being of the admins and delay this discussion to another time? Not drop it, but delay it. That's what I intend to do, and my apologies for my part in adding sorrow to them, if that's been the effect, though I did not intend it.


I agree with Jake.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 20, 2019)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> It's assumed that a number of Southern slave owners raped or otherwise committed adultery with female slaves, bringing forth illegitimate children who are also slaves.



To address the OP directly: It is highly improbable that it did not happen. If it were not prevalent, then how did the mulattoes comes about?



PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Is there any talk among antebellum pastors or theologians about such a crime? Any talk of disciplining such offenders?



One question to consider is whether or not, in actual reality, the issues of chattel slavery and adulterous slaveholders may _really_ be separated - not so much in the abstract, but in the specific historical context of 19th century America?



PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Any idea how common this really was? (Any is clearly horrific but I don't know if 1%, 10%, or 40% of slave owners had slave mistresses.)



I am not at home and cannot consult my books as to the estimated figure. If you do not hear anything by Saturday, please remind me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 20, 2019)

At the risk of stirring the pot further, the OP speaks of "adulterous" slave-owners. But I need to ask if one can truly committ adultery with your own PROPERTY. The relationship was unequal enough that we can say that the slave-owner abused his power and many cases were probably abuse.

Poor women in Germany in Post-WWII also sold themselves to keep them or their children from starving, and I would not call those "relationships" but rather prostitution. In the prolonged contact of a plantation, it would not be called prostitution, but it was not quite the consensual relationship of mutual equals that we would desire.

The options of what happened in these relationships are on a spectrum: (1) The man forced himself on her in outright rape, (2) He wielded his power to pressure her into sex, (3) He groomed and favored her to woo her into willingness, (4) They both had sexual urges and an opportunity and chose to fornicate without love, (5) They fell into love with one another, (6) She enticed her owner or used her beauty or seductiveness to gain favors from him, (7) She sought him out to be impregnated to lighten her load and procure a better life.

I think all of the 7 above scenarios probably happened. But a pure option 5 probably was a minority of those cases.


Sexual misuse of slave woman was so widespread that it often became fodder for the abolitionists. Even if we suppose they embellished or cherry-picked the worst cases, we cannot deny that it was a true problem.

Here is one abolitionist's screed against clergy who disallowed slaves to marry, separated slave families and either abused or took part in allowing the abuse of slaves:

"Ye have

recklessly trampled under foot the sacred institution of marriage,

consigned every sixth woman in the country to a life of hopeless concubinage and adultery, and

turned your famous Ten-Miles-Square into a mart where the rich aristocrat may lawfully sell the poor man's wife for purposes of prostitution, thus legalizing violence on female chastity in its most horrible and disgusting forms.
Think, ye fathers and mothers, against whom I bring these tremendous charges; O, think of your own daughters on the block of the auctioneer, to be sold to any vile and loathsome wretch who may choose to purchase them, to pander to his beastly lusts!"

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/thieves.htm#p71-vile-clergy

And here is a paper on inter-racial relationships in the South, page 161-162 delves into the issue of mixed children: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/cas/staff/lockley/sa1997.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 20, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> At the risk of stirring the pot further, the OP speaks of "adulterous" slave-owners. But I need to ask if one can truly committ adultery with your own PROPERTY. The relationship was unequal enough that we can say that the slave-owner abused his power and many cases were probably abuse.


Can you clarify? It seems like a false dichotomy.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 21, 2019)

arapahoepark said:


> Can you clarify? It seems like a false dichotomy.


To speak plainly, the OP labels as "adulterous" male slave-owners who carried on sexual relationships with slave women who were their property. 

More properly, many of these cases should not be labeled "adultery" at all, or at least only, but these cases should also be labeled as cases of sexual abuse.

Even the world knows that if a male psychologist has sex with a female patient who comes to him for help this is against their ethical code (misuse of power). Surely then one who is the property of another person (especially a female owned by a male) has less agency and less ability to engage in a consensual "adulterous relationship" and the relationship was probably coerced in some way.


These slave owners were often not guilty just of adultery, but of sexual abuse. That is my point. This makes it worse.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 21, 2019)

Ok. So guilty males but not necessarily females since it was basically rape/coercion. Makes sense. I would agree.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 21, 2019)

arapahoepark said:


> Ok. So guilty males but not necessarily females since it was basically rape/coercion. Makes sense. I would agree.


Yes. Thanks.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 25, 2019)

Greetings, it’s been awhile since I signed in to catch up and it’s sad to see that posts like this still seem to stir up such ill feelings among the brethren. These type of posts should be thought out well before you put them up and all of the ramifications of the feelings of others considered. 
I’m an old man now and very sick. Has I approach my end I see things a little differently and my affliction has caused me to moderate my emotions toward brethren whom I consider to be in error on things that are non essential and those whom I think may be too selective in their reading of 19th century historical subjects.
Love one another with fervency. Make sure YOUR sins are gone and that Christ is YOUR Lord. After all, you are as wicked as anyone who ever lived. The apostle Paul acknowledges this when he said he was the “chief of sinners”. May the Love of Christ Jesus comfort you all this day.
Philippians 4:8 KJV
[8] Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 1


----------



## ZackF (Mar 25, 2019)

Blueridge Believer said:


> Greetings, it’s been awhile since I signed in to catch up and it’s sad to see that posts like this still seem to stir up such ill feelings among the brethren. These type of posts should be thought out well before you put them up and all of the ramifications of the feelings of others considered.
> I’m an old man now and very sick. Has I approach my end I see things a little differently and my affliction has caused me to moderate my emotions toward brethren whom I consider to be in error on things that are non essential and those whom I think may be too selective in their reading of 19th century historical subjects.
> Love one another with fervency. Make sure YOUR sins are gone and that Christ is YOUR Lord. After all, you are as wicked as anyone who ever lived. The apostle Paul acknowledges this when he said he was the “chief of sinners”. May the Love of Christ Jesus comfort you all this day.
> Philippians 4:8 KJV
> [8] Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.


I see you’re 59 and being taken down at that age. I’m sad that is the case but thank you for the wise exhortation.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 25, 2019)

Soon to be 60 by God’s Grace. Maybe I’ll live a little longer. The doctors don’t know everything and my condition is still developing. I’m enjoying the church and life more than ever now and just want to be a blessing to God’s children. The Lord bless and keep you

Reactions: Amen 1


----------

