# Dabney and slavery



## Herald (Mar 6, 2007)

Thank you to Andrew for suggesting I find an existing thread of start one of my own. I searched and wasn't able to find a thread dealing with this topic. There probably is but I've missed it. 

My question is simple. If Dabney was sympathetic or in agreement with antebellum slavery, how does this effect his legacy? In the spirit of honesty, my question is not without a bias. I believe slavery, specifically antebellum slavery in the United States, was a great sin. As with any sin, it can be forgiven in Christ. Many PB members hold Dabney in high regard. I am not trying to create a stir or question Dabney's contribution to the church, but I would like an answer to my question.

Thanks.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 6, 2007)

Brother Bill, I would suggest reading Dabney's book, "In defence of Virginia and the south". It will give you an insight into what he thought as well as what he believed. One must remember that just 30 yrs befor the war, all the states were slave states and the Union still had five slave states untill after the war ended.

BTW, what was the apostle Paul's view on slavery? How about the OT saints? in my opinion, Dabney's views on slavery do not affect his legacy whatsoever. He was a product of his time.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 6, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Thank you to Andrew for suggesting I find an existing thread of start one of my own. I searched and wasn't able to find a thread dealing with this topic. There probably is but I've missed it.
> 
> My question is simple. If Dabney was sympathetic or in agreement with antebellum slavery, how does this effect his legacy? In the spirit of honesty, my question is not without a bias. I believe slavery, specifically antebellum slavery in the United States, was a great sin. As with any sin, it can be forgiven in Christ. Many PB members hold Dabney in high regard. I am not trying to create a stir or question Dabney's contribution to the church, but I would like an answer to my question.
> 
> Thanks.



Unfortunately, many men – and women – of conscience blinked at slavery. For example Daniel Webster’s contribution to the Dred Scott decision - which should be required reading. (As should Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and The Minister’s Wooing. )
Maybe this link will help? 



http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2007/02/more-on-dabney-and-slavery.html


----------



## satz (Mar 6, 2007)

Bill,

Is your problem with slavery per se, or with the specific way slavery was carried out in the time period you are referring to?


----------



## Herald (Mar 6, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Brother Bill, I would suggest reading Dabney's book, "In defence of Virginia and the south". It will give you an insight into what he thought as well as what he believed. One must remember that just 30 yrs befor the war, all the states were slave states and the Union still had five slave states untill after the war ended.
> 
> BTW, what was the apostle Paul's view on slavery? How about the OT saints? in my opinion, Dabney's views on slavery do not affect his legacy whatsoever. He was a product of his time.



Brother James, I'm trying to divorce myself from the South vs. North perspective and center on the institution of slavery. It has been my experience that any comment about slavery (in the negative) is taken as a rebuke of the South. I am not going there with this question. I am centering on the issue of slavery and the role of the Christian in regards to it.

What comments did Paul make regarding slavery? 



> Philemon 1:15-16 15 For perhaps he was for this reason parted from you for a while, that you should have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.



I believe this passage reveals Paul's true feeling about slavery. He viewed Onesimus as a brother in Christ, not a slave to man. He wanted Philemon to accept him as a brother. But Paul also knew that slavery was legal. He could have ordered Philemon (1:18-19), but instead appealed to him as fellow brother.

I lump slavery in with divorce. Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of Israel's heart. Slavery was also allowed, not because it was good and decent, but rather because the hearts of the people were corrupt in that area. 

I do understand that Dabney was a product of his time. We are products of our own time. But if slavery is wrong, then the era in which it is practiced is of little concern In my humble opinion. I suppose this can easily turn into a debate on whether slavery is a sin. The cat is out of the bag regarding my position on salvery. I do believe it is a sin.


----------



## Herald (Mar 6, 2007)

satz said:


> Bill,
> 
> Is your problem with slavery per se, or with the specific way slavery was carried out in the time period you are referring to?



Both


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 6, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Brother James, I'm trying to divorce myself from the South vs. North perspective and center on the institution of slavery. It has been my experience that any comment about slavery (in the negative) is taken as a rebuke of the South. I am not going there with this question. I am centering on the issue of slavery and the role of the Christian in regards to it.
> 
> What comments did Paul make regarding slavery?
> 
> ...




Paul also said:
1Ti 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Now back to the question at hand. How do you think we should feel about Dabney, since he was a Confederate officer and a slave holder himself? For that matter, since most of our fathers of the Puritan era were members of a slaveholding society, how should we feel about them? All it proves is that men were and are sinners. Slavery is not the supreme sin of the world. I would submit that the murder of millions of children in this country has far excelled it.
BTW, slavery was around a long time before Moses tolerated it. Abraham was quite a slave holder himself.


----------



## SolaGratia (Mar 6, 2007)

*Slavery & Christianity*

Bill, 

The www.trinityfoundation.org just released a new book which is a commentary on Paul's letter to Philemon, title _Salvery and Christianity_ by author John W. Robbins. You might want to get a hold of it, since the author has some interesting information regarding the U.S. Civil War or the War of Rebellion (which is the official name for the Civil War in the Annals of the U.S.), Romanism, because the Pope was in favored of the Confederate government, Dabney, True Biblical Christianity, and more. Below is some info. from the website on the book,

Slavery. Racism. Rebellion. Civil disobedience. The problems are as pressing today as they were 1900 years ago when the Apostle Paul wrote a letter to a slave-owner, Philemon, about his runaway slave – and the runaway slave carried Paul’s letter back to his legal owner.

What did the letter say? Did Paul – does Christianity – approve of slavery? Does Christianity condone slavery? Or does the Gospel abolish slavery and establish freedom wherever it is believed? Jesus said, “If you abide in my Word, you are my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Paul’s letter to Philemon is a masterpiece of divinely inspired political philosophy. It provides the basis for the non-violent abolition of slavery wherever the Gospel of Jesus Christ is preached and believed.

Dr. John W. Robbins holds the Ph.D. in Political Philosophy from The Johns Hopkins University. His most recent book is Freedom and Capitalism: Essays on Christian Politics and Economics.-www.trinityfoundation.org


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 6, 2007)

Yes, we're all sinners and so let's not shy away from the fact that Dabney's views toward black people was sinful. We need not beat around the bush nor believe we are more justified in God's sight by noting that.

I wish I could find a biography of a _contemporary_ of Dabney - John L. Girardeau. Contrary to Dabney, Girardeau labored to spread the Gospel and establish Presbyterian congregations among black men in a time when Dabney was actively working to refuse their admittance into the Presbyterian Church. 

Seems to me that one man could live by the idea of "...there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, ..." when it went against the grain of socieity while another man could not.

I have no doubt that Dabney trusted Christ as His Savior but this is a blight on the man's record.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 6, 2007)

Here it is:

http://www.pcahistory.org/periodicals/spr/bios/girardeau.html



> In January 1854, he and his wife Penelope Sarah ("Sal") moved from St. John Parish and Wilton Presbyterian Church (January 1849-December 53) to Charleston to assume the work begun by John B. Adger and the session of Second Presbyterian Church. The work was designed to establish a church for and of the slaves. In 1850, citizens of Charleston built a meeting house on Anson Street for the exclusive use of the slaves. After Adger's health failed, Girardeau was handpicked by Adger and Smyth to lead the work forward. The work expanded from thirty-six black members when Girardeau arrived to over 600 at the time of the American Armageddon. He preached to over 1,500 weekly from 1859 through 1861.
> 
> In 1858/59 the Anson Street Mission experienced a marvelous revival and in April 1859 they moved into a new building at the prestigious and prime intersection of Meeting and Calhoun Streets. The black membership was given the privilege of naming their church (which was particularized in 1858) and they chose "Zion." Zion Presbyterian Church became famous for Girardeau's preaching-he was called "the Spurgeon of America"-, but it was also noteworthy for its diaconal ministry in the community, catechetical training of hundreds in the city, sewing clubs for the women, and missionary activity. The outreach and influence of Zion was of such public notoriety that Girardeau and the session were often criticized and sometimes physically threatened. For example, the catechetical training and teaching of hymns and psalms was so effective that some Charlestonians believed Girardeau was teaching the slaves to read for themselves (which was contrary to state law).
> 
> ...


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Yes, we're all sinners and so let's not shy away from the fact that Dabney's views toward black people was sinful. We need not beat around the bush nor believe we are more justified in God's sight by noting that.
> 
> I wish I could find a biography of a _contemporary_ of Dabney - John L. Girardeau. Contrary to Dabney, Girardeau labored to spread the Gospel and establish Presbyterian congregations among black men in a time when Dabney was actively working to refuse their admittance into the Presbyterian Church.
> 
> ...



Have you ever read some of Lincoln's views on Black people? There was never a more vile rascist. It seems it was a societal trait in those days. Whatever you want to say about Dabney, he is no geater sinner than you or I. He was no less of one either.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 6, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Have you ever read some of Lincoln's views on Black people? There was never a more vile rascist. It seems it was a societal trait in those days. Whatever you want to say about Dabney, he is no geater sinner than you or I. He was no less of one either.



Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Did I mention Lincoln for a moment? I don't care for one solitary moment what Lincoln thought of Black People. I do care how a minister of the Gospel of Christ did. A strange comparison you make.

I demonstrated a peer who, under persecution, labored in the Gospel to treat men born in the image of God as worthy heirs to share in the inheritance of the Gospel.

You seem to think that Paul was asking little of the Jews to treat Gentiles like brothers. It was hard enough to get a Jew to think of a "dog" as a human being worthy of simple conversation much less to embrace a man who you grew up thinking unclean. Do you think it was a small thing that Peter separated himself from the Gentile believers in Antioch? Paul had to withstand him to his face! The scene is pitiful - a pillar in the Church probably caused some Gentiles to desire circumcision just so they could be like Peter and the other Jews who were separating themselves.

Integrity demands that we face our sins and not pretend they're not so bad because, after all, Lincoln was a sinner too. That's the way the world judges righteousness.

Let me write this again so you can read it after you take off your blinders that prevent you from seeing any criticism of things of the South - Dabney is no better or no worse than I. Let me say this again so you triply have no excuse not to pay attention: Dabney is no better or worse than I. We're all sinners saved by Grace.

I do think it is lamentable and, indeed, a blight on the man's reputation as a man of the Gospel that he refused the right hand of fellowship to men who were made his brothers and sisters by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I do think it is lamentable and, indeed, a blight on the man's reputation as a man of the Gospel that he refused the right hand of fellowship to men who were made his brothers and sisters by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.





It is sad to think that race could cause us to view our brothers and sisters in Christ differently. However, must racism be equated with slavery? As others in this thread have mentioned, I myself am wondering if the whole counsel of God concerning the institution of "household servants" should be thrown out because of one verse in Philemon. Indentured servitude used to be a way that criminals or individuals owing debts could both make amends and learn a skill which would help them to later be more effective in society. Also, it is an unfair generalization to say that every single Southerner during the civil war beat their slaves and treated them like animals. What about when slaves were seen as equals in Christ (part of the covenant household), provided for (food, shelter, religious teaching, love, etc) but just don't have the same social status and are employed in the service of another human being? Is it possible that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater? But as you've already mentioned, Rich, I realize that this thread is about Dabney and _his_ view of slavery. So perhaps this is the wrong place for my question.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 6, 2007)

And also, let us not let modern discussions of racial-based slavery blind us to the fact that indentured servitude, properly qualified and applied, can be a great asset to society.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 6, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> And also, let us not let modern discussions of racial-based slavery blind us to the fact that indentured servitude, properly qualified and applied, can be a great asset to society.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 6, 2007)

Psa 133:1 <A Song of degrees of David.> Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
Psa 133:2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
Psa 133:3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

 

Goodnight dear brethren!


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 6, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Brother Bill, I would suggest reading Dabney's book, "In defence of Virginia and the south". It will give you an insight into what he thought as well as what he believed. One must remember that just 30 yrs befor the war, all the states were slave states and the Union still had five slave states untill after the war ended.
> 
> BTW, what was the apostle Paul's view on slavery? How about the OT saints? in my opinion, Dabney's views on slavery do not affect his legacy whatsoever. He was a product of his time.



But slavery of the apostle Paul's time and _manstealing_ are/were two different things. Slavery in the US resembled virtually nothing of slavery practiced during NT times.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Here it is:
> 
> http://www.pcahistory.org/periodicals/spr/bios/girardeau.html



   

Thanks.


----------



## Herald (Mar 6, 2007)

Let me qualify what I mean by slavery. In the antebellum context slavery did not consist of indentured servitude. If a person wished to obligate themselves to another for payment, I would not equate that to slavery. But America's history is not with indentured servitude. Rather it is with the trading of human beings for profit. 

James was quite right when he pointed out the horror of abortion. But my OP was not to compare one sin against another. That is an attempt to minimize the gravity of one sin by trumping it with another. Slavery was an abomination. Strong word? Yes, I suppose it is. But what sin isn't an abomination before the eyes of a holy God?

Many of us have our personal heroes. Spurgeon, Edwards, Pink, Gill, Calvin, Luther etc. They were all men. They were all sinful men. Knowing this, shouldn't their fallibility be all the more cause for us to embrace God? None of us, nor any person of history is beyond examination. God does not care what side of the Mason-Dixon Line that we call home. 

It would be easy for this thread to take on a life of its own. We are not going to solve the problem of racism in this thread, but perhaps we can remember that the gospel is to go forth to all, regardless of race, current religion or socio-economic status. Racism *always *results in slavery...of the mind. The mind must first be convinced that one man is better than another. Once that is accomplished, one man owning another comes naturally.

There is only one enslavement that I would desire:

[bible]Romans 6:22-23[/bible]


----------



## Herald (Mar 6, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> And also, let us not let modern discussions of racial-based slavery blind us to the fact that indentured servitude, properly qualified and applied, can be a great asset to society.



Jacob, but we're not talking about indentured servitude.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 6, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> It is sad to think that race could cause us to view our brothers and sisters in Christ differently. However, must racism be equated with slavery?



Well, when we're dealing with slavery in the US, it was indeed race-based and racial biases were institutionalized by the government to continue such oppression. Injustice upon injustice was piled upon people snatched from their land and sold into slavery. Husbands and wives were separated from one another, as one was sold off one place, and another elsewhere. 

Let us not downplay the inhumanities that were done in an effort to save a 'hero' of the faith's reputation. He defended it. Let us not try to change it into a strictly 'slavery' (and then 'biblical slavery') issue when it was indeed a 'race' issue to begin with. That's disrespectful to the people who still deal with the effects of it today.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 6, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Well, when we're dealing with slavery in the US, it was indeed race-based and racial biases were institutionalized by the government to continue such oppression. Injustice upon injustice was piled upon people snatched from their land and sold into slavery. Husbands and wives were separated from one another, as one was sold off one place, and another elsewhere.
> 
> Let us not downplay the inhumanities that were done in an effort to save a 'hero' of the faith's reputation. He defended it. Let us not try to change it into a strictly 'slavery' (and then 'biblical slavery') issue when it was indeed a 'race' issue to begin with. That's disrespectful to the people who still deal with the effects of it today.



I surely didn't mean to be disrespectful toward anyone and I apologize if it seemed that way. 

I think I made every point that you made in response to my post. Was I unclear about the distinction you brought up? I said I realize that the thread wasn't originally started to be about "slavery vs. 'biblical slavery'" but I was agreeing with others who were responding to reactionary tendencies. People earlier in this thread have said that slavery of any kind is immoral and I think that's false. That's all I was trying to say. As you can see from the small part of my comment which you did quote, I acknowledge that the concept of racial superiority is evil.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 6, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> That's disrespectful to the people who still deal with the effects of it today.



The only reason that people still deal with the effect today is due to Reconstruction and the various governmental programs in the following years. I personally think that Black Americans in general would have been better off if the South had won. But I am a crazy CR, so you do not have to mind me.  

CT


----------



## bookslover (Mar 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Contrary to Dabney, Girardeau labored to spread the Gospel and establish Presbyterian congregations among black men in a time when Dabney was actively working to refuse their admittance into the Presbyterian Church.



And, apparently, Dabney never changed his mind. When he died in 1898 - more than 30 years after the end of the Civil War - he had instructed his survivors that he was to be buried in his military uniform. Good theologian, but definitely with a blind spot regarding slavery.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 6, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I surely didn't mean to be disrespectful toward anyone and I apologize if it seemed that way.
> 
> I think I made every point that you made in response to my post. Was I unclear about the distinction you brought up? I said I realize that the thread wasn't originally started to be about "slavery vs. 'biblical slavery'" but I was agreeing with others who were responding to reactionary tendencies. People earlier in this thread have said that slavery of any kind is immoral and I think that's false. That's all I was trying to say. As you can see from the small part of my comment which you did quote, I acknowledge that the concept of racial superiority is evil.



It's cool. I apologize if I came off a little too harsh. I still get a little heated on this sometimes. And for the record, I do believe that an institutionalized form of slavery for criminals would probably be extremely beneficial to our society.... and somewhat rehabilitative.

I'll agree with the above post - Dabney just had a blind spot on slavery. 

At the end of the day, we all have blindspots..... while I don't wanna ever see slavery in the US minimized, I also don't wanna see folk harping all over every theologian who ever owned a slave (there's a few folk on the board I was a moderator at who LOVE bashing Jonathan Edwards on this issue). 

As my good friend Redeemed would say "I wonder how people are going to look back on _their lives_ 50-100 years from now when they're dead and which sins of theirs they'll pull out and parade around as if it were the totality of their lives...."


----------



## bookslover (Mar 6, 2007)

joshua said:


> What does wanting to be buried in his uniform mean in relation to his views on the African race?



Doesn't it imply that he never changed his mind about the slavery issue and that, on that score, the South was right and the North was wrong?


----------



## Davidius (Mar 6, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Doesn't it imply that he never changed his mind about the slavery issue and that, on that score, the South was right and the North was wrong?



Since the conflict wasn't ultimately about slavery worms:?) I don't think the fact that he was buried in his uniform _necessarily_ means that it was because of his racial philosophy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 6, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Well, when we're dealing with slavery in the US, it was indeed race-based and racial biases were institutionalized by the government to continue such oppression. Injustice upon injustice was piled upon people snatched from their land and sold into slavery. Husbands and wives were separated from one another, as one was sold off one place, and another elsewhere.
> 
> Let us not downplay the inhumanities that were done in an effort to save a 'hero' of the faith's reputation. He defended it. Let us not try to change it into a strictly 'slavery' (and then 'biblical slavery') issue when it was indeed a 'race' issue to begin with. That's disrespectful to the people who still deal with the effects of it today.





Let me get this out on the table to disarm some people that love the South: I acknowledge that racism exists in the North and always has. Growing up in the military (my father was career USAF) I was isolated from much of the turmoil going on in the 70's and 80's. My parents are from New London, CT (though my family now all lives in the South in TX and VA). 

I remember being shocked when my father told me that his father and uncle were racist. Moving around a lot, I probably spent a grand total of a week with them in 18 years. The realization that they were racist was quite a shock to me. I remember talking to my grandmother around 1992 when my brother was getting married. I was excited for him. She was not so excited. I asked her why? It was because my sister-in-law (Mexican) had a wallet full of pictures of friends who, in her words, were "..blacker than the Ace of Spades...." My grandfather, who was 94 when he died in 1990, used to say that black people were related to monkeys. These are all Yankees folks.

I've lived all over the U.S. and I can say that racism exists everywhere. Anyone that knows the history of the U.S. knows that we have a history - both in the North and the South - of racism. Margaret Sanger, like many in her day, was a huge believer in Eugenics. Planned Parenthood was created to cut down on the number of "undesirables" that the colored races were producing.

Thus, no corner of the U.S. has clean hands. In short: This ain't a Southern thang. Lincoln was not a saintly hero that considered all men equal and it's clear that he would have compromised on slavery to preserve the union at certain points in the Civil War.

That ought to satisfy those who fear that every time someone like Dabney comes up that the high falootin Yankees are sticking their noses in the air and dissing the South.

So, now that I've said that let me make this plain: this absurd idea that life was heaven on earth for the black people in the South before the War is just absurd. I've had conversations with sober and respectable Christians that try to re-pristinate the South and argue that black people liked living in the South and conditions were just great for them.

There are plenty of wonderful things about the South. It's simply not necessary to try to whitewash the period or make excuses for it. If a Yankee is trying to pretend that racism is a Southern thing then tell him to pound sand but when people are saying American slavery was bad as was the racism that pervaded the U.S. during that period, Christians ought to be the first people to agree with that wholeheartedly.

Hemming and hawing over it and saying: "Yeah, slavery was bad but let's not forget that indentured servanthood is good" just strikes me like saying: "Suicide bombers are bad but dynamite is good for mining so let's not forget about that."


----------



## Davidius (Mar 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Hemming and hawing over it and saying: "Yeah, slavery was bad but let's not forget that indentured servanthood is good" just strikes me like saying: "The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center is bad but some building demolitions are a good idea."



***EDITED***

Rich,

While I agree with your post in general, I would say that those who react in such a way are not being _so_ ridiculous. It's mostly done in response to reactionaries (something on which Joshua has touched). Whether or not _all_ blacks in the antebellum South lived well (which I don't think any intelligent person would argue), the fact is that some did. There were godly men who treated their servants as I would assume Abraham did his. When someone comes along and says "slavery was done wrongly by some (or most?) 18th and 19th century Southerners (Americans), therefore all slavery is evil and a sinful abomination to God," it's important to point out that they're _wrong_ because they're teaching the doctrines of man as the commandments of God at that point. We're not trying to defend racial subjugation, we're saying that 1) it's not fair to use slavery as something with which to pick on the South (an issue which you've aptly dealt with), 2) it's not fair to accuse anyone who has ever practiced slavery as being cruel and sinful and 3) the differentiation between cruel, racially-driven slavery and 'other' slavery is important for other reasons as well, such as being able to respond to those who make it sound like God was a racist plantation owner because of their knee-jerk reaction to seeing what the bible has to say about slavery. I hate hearing people dismiss things in the bible which have become politically incorrect, joining in with the crowd and condemning things which the bible hasn't condemned, just to look better to unbelievers. When my atheist uncle brought up this issue with me I had to be honest with him and say that the bible doesn't condemn slavery but that it was actually acceptable in Israel's civil law and that Paul describes how slaves can glorify God through their status, by showing what it means to be a bondservant of Christ. However, I did point out to him that the slavery described in the bible is not what everyone thinks of today when their knees jerk. 

The people who argue this way could be a little less dismissive of the real problems which you've addressed; you're definitely right there. But that is an issue of having left something out, not of having said something incorrect.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 7, 2007)

My g-g-g-father moved from Pennslvania with his 2 slaves prior to the Civil War and then him and his slaves fought together for the north, afterwards splitting up their land and sharecropping all together afterwards. That part of southern Missouri was a hotbed of Confederate sympathizers and the rest of my relatives were them... So, I can recognize the complexities of all this.


And yes, Sunday morning is still the most segregated time in America.


----------



## Herald (Mar 7, 2007)

> When someone comes along and says "slavery was done wrongly by some (or most?) 18th and 19th century Southerners (Americans), therefore all slavery is evil and a sinful abomination to God," it's important to point out that they're wrong because they're teaching the doctrines of man as the commandments of God at that point.



David - just a point of clarification. I don't believe antebellum slavery was sinful because it was done wrongly, I believe antebellum slavery was sinful because it existed.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 7, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - just a point of clarification. I don't believe antebellum slavery was sinful because it was done wrongly, I believe antebellum slavery was sinful because it existed.



I think David's point was that we should be careful in distinguishing our idea of slavery itself and whatever we think of antebellum slavery. To do otherwise would be like attacking marriage by way of polygamy.

I think the biggest question to answer is what was antebellum slavery in general. Was fair treatment the exception or was harsh/evil treatment the exception. Anyone one can point to some good or to some evil but to kick (the South/and or North) or to defend it one has to decide that the good or the evil was the exception.

CT


----------



## Ravens (Mar 7, 2007)

There are so many streams and tributaries that flow into this particular river of discussion that its almost impossible for any resolution or fruit-production to take place.


----------



## Herald (Mar 7, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> I think David's point was that we should be careful in distinguishing our idea of slavery itself and whatever we think of antebellum slavery. To do otherwise would be like attacking marriage by way of polygamy.
> 
> I think the biggest question to answer is what was antebellum slavery in general. Was fair treatment the exception or was harsh/evil treatment the exception. Anyone one can point to some good or to some evil but to kick (the South/and or North) or to defend it one has to decide that the good or the evil was the exception.
> 
> CT



Hermonta, I'm looking at it from a different perspective. Whether harsh treatment of slaves was the norm or not does not justify the practice. That would be like comparing kind drug dealers to ruthless ones. I don't view antebellum slavery as amoral. But you bring up a larger question. Is there a difference between pre-antebellum slavery and antebellum slavery? It depends on the definition of slavery. The slavery I am referring to is forced and unwilling. A person who is taken against their will and forced into the service of another. I believe there is a difference between slavery and indentured servitude. I have yet to see slavery presented in a positive light in scripture, at least not forced slavery. Even in Exodus 21, slavery was never meant to be permanent. 

What does all of this have to do with Dabney? Not much in the larger scheme. But let me tell you what I have pulled out of this discussion. We should challenge the social norms of our day and examine them in light of scripture. Just because something is normative according to society does not mean it is obedient to scripture. There is nothing we can do about Dabney or any other Christian who owned, or was sympathetic to slavery. But we can take stock of our own lives and make sure we are not guilty of jumping on the bandwagon of the world.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 7, 2007)

Back to Dabney.

Dabney once wrote that he was happy to acquire a young slave because he would conform more readily to beatings.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 7, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Back to Dabney.
> 
> Dabney once wrote that he was happy to acquire a young slave because he would conform more readily to beatings.



Where did he write that? I read his book "in defence of Virginia" where he talked about his 18 servants. He said (if memory serves me) that he administered physical punishment on 2 occasions for adultery and fornication.
Please provide a link if possible.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 7, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Hermonta, I'm looking at it from a different perspective. Whether harsh treatment of slaves was the norm or not does not justify the practice.



It neither justifies nor condemns. I was however assuming that since there have been on condemnations concerning slavery in and of itself, that people on this thread had accepted that such could in fact be Godly.



> That would be like comparing kind drug dealers to ruthless ones.



First one would have to make the argument stick that slavery is akin to drug dealing along the lines of "evil always".



> I don't view antebellum slavery as amoral.



There is almost nothing on earth that is amoral.



> But you bring up a larger question. Is there a difference between pre-antebellum slavery and antebellum slavery? It depends on the definition of slavery. The slavery I am referring to is forced and unwilling. A person who is taken against their will and forced into the service of another. I believe there is a difference between slavery and indentured servitude. I have yet to see slavery presented in a positive light in scripture, at least not forced slavery. Even in Exodus 21, slavery was never meant to be permanent.



Actually in some cases in the OT, slaves could be handed down to the next gen, but that was only in the case of those captured in war (or so I remember). However a clean case can be made that such practices were special to Israel. That if my memory serves me was one of Dabney's key errors.



> What does all of this have to do with Dabney? Not much in the larger scheme. But let me tell you what I have pulled out of this discussion. We should challenge the social norms of our day and examine them in light of scripture.



Most definitely.



> Just because something is normative according to society does not mean it is obedient to scripture. There is nothing we can do about Dabney or any other Christian who owned, or was sympathetic to slavery. But we can take stock of our own lives and make sure we are not guilty of jumping on the bandwagon of the world.



I think the one thing to remember when thinking of Dabney and his defense of Virginia etc, was the substantial anti-Christian element in the abolitionist movement. That sometimes can cause some to overcompensate, in their counterattack, and let some evil things go in order to beat the "greater" evil.

CT


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 7, 2007)

It appears that in Lev. 25 brother Hermonta that bondmen could be bought from the heathen nations and be kept for generations:

Lev 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 
Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that [are] with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 
Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit [them for] a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 7, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> It appears that in Lev. 25 brother Hermonta that bondmen could be bought from the heathen nations and be kept for generations:
> 
> Lev 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
> Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that [are] with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
> Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit [them for] a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.



Oh please do not say you are excusing the peculiar institutions that defined American slavery! Nt


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 7, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Back to Dabney.
> 
> Dabney once wrote that he was happy to acquire a young slave because he would conform more readily to beatings.



This might show that even the most reformed in doctrine, need continual reformation -- by God's grace through faith!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 7, 2007)

bwsmith said:


> Oh please do not say you are excusing the peculiar institutions that defined American slavery! Nt




No one is excusing or condemning anything. Just reading scripture.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 7, 2007)

Two snippets by C. N. Willborn on Dabney.
Robert L. Dabney, _The Sensualistic Philosophy_ (Dallas, Tex.: Naphali Press, 2004) Preface by Willborn, 7-8. This book is offered in the PB book review section.
Outside a certain theological circle today, Dabney is probably best known as an apologist for the antebellum Southern culture. _A Defense of Virginia and Through Her of the South_ was written at the end of the War and defended slavery as a Biblical institution. Furthermore, he sought to prove the benefits of the peculiar institution for the eco*nomic and moral condition of the South. For many his support of sla*very and certain views of the African culture, render him a racist and, thus, unsuitable for intellectual consideration. With the large racist tag dangling in front of their eyes, Dabney’s detractors have often missed the broader implications of the very complex Southern cul*ture he espoused. It was a culture centered on family and familial affections. Honor, patriotism, nobility, and commitment to a repre*sentative constitutional government were all marks of the civiliza*tion. Still, many have truncated “the Cause,” as the Southern culture has been called, so as to define it as a racially-blinded class of ogres. ​Like so many of his Southern contemporaries the racist stereotype has rendered Dabney virtually worthless to several generations of theological students, social theorists, and churchmen. Unfortunately, with the bath water (dingy as it may be), the church and intellectual community at large has dispensed with a first-class theologian, edu*cator, socio-political commentator, and philosopher. For the theologi*cal student and pastor, Dabney’s _Systematic Theology_ provides a very able defense of a moderate Calvinism and confessional orthodoxy. His _Discussions _(now available in five volumes) provide a broad sam*pling of his productivity on subjects like public education, science, politics, ministerial training, economics, and philosophy. Under the _locus_ of philosophy the reader will find further stimulating reading in _The Practical Philosophy. _The material for this book came largely from his lectures to his University of Texas students and was prepared for publication in 1896. According to T. C. Johnson, Dabney considered this to be his best book.​Next to _The Practical Philosophy_, Dabney considered _The Sensualis*tic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century Considered_ (1875 and 1887) as his ablest work. He was, not unlike a number of very able eighteenth and nineteenth century theologians, a practitioner of Scottish Com*mon Sense Realism. Yet, he has recently been described as an eclectic in his utilization of the Common Sense Philosophy. Certainly he was no slave to a philosophical system that was in his day in substantial flux. Still it is accurate for categorization to label him a Common Sense Realist. As a Scottish Realist he held tenaciously to “that class of truths known as primary cognitions, innate ideas, [and] first truths.” Dabney held these “first truths,” to be “faith assumptions,” to borrow from Dr. Douglas Kelly. As such, the “first truths” influ*enced and shaped human reasoning. Furthermore, Kelly likened Dabney to Cornelius Van Til in the way he consistently showed how non-theists “reasoned on the basis of unproven, faith assumptions.”[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]​ 
[1]Douglas Kelly, “Robert Lewis Dabney,” in _Reformed Theology in Amer*ica,_ ed. David Wells (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 220.



The Confessional Presbyteriian, 172-175 
Review: Sean Michael Lucas, [FONT=&quot]Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life [/FONT](Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2005). Hardcover, 295 pages. $24.99. Reviewed by C. N. Willborn, Professor, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
Another positive side of this work is the handling of Dabney and the black population. Here the reviewer enters into very lonely ground. Many friends no doubt will disagree; many who thought they disagreed with the reviewer will be pleasantly surprised. Dabney was wrong in his view of the Africans brought to America through slaver trade, as Lucas argues. Until the end, Dabney insisted that they were inferior to his Caucasian ancestry and contemporaries. Unlike his South Carolina friends and co-laborers, John L. Girardeau and Thomas Peck, Dabney did not believe that a black man could ascend to majority status in society. A black man could never be qualified to fill the office of Pastor in Dabney’s world. Girardeau demurred from his friend. Prior to filling Thornwell’s shoes as the theologian at Columbia Seminary, Girardeau had labored among the slaves and free blacks of Charleston. He built a church for the black population that numbered over a thousand in membership and witnessed thousands in attendance every Lord’s Day. Girardeau ordained black ruling elders in 1869 and agitated for integrated churches as soon as possible. It was Girardeau who held out to the end (1875 General Assembly) for the Southern Church to withstand segregation along the color line. The action of the 1875 Assembly for “organic separation” was to Dabney’s liking. One must think that Dabney would have been a better man had he followed Girardeau in his view of blacks and their ability within the church. p. 174.​


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 7, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> No one is excusing or condemning anything. Just reading scripture.



Then I am not sure why you interjected it? nt


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 7, 2007)

So, even the best need reforming?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 7, 2007)

bwsmith said:


> Then I am not sure why you interjected it? nt



He was responding to my claim that under some circumstances in the OT concerning Israel, people could own slaves indefinitely.

CT


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 7, 2007)

bwsmith said:


> Then I am not sure why you interjected it? nt



I was adding to brother Hermonta's post just above it. Read it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 7, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Back to Dabney.
> 
> Dabney once wrote that he was happy to acquire a young slave because he would conform more readily to beatings.



Page number? I have a copy of Defense of Virginia on my desk. I grant that he could have said that, but that's a pretty hefty charge to throw at someone.


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 7, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> He was responding to my claim that under some circumstances in the OT concerning Israel, people could own slaves indefinitely.
> 
> CT



In my humble opinion, there was no comparison between the OT practices, and the grim institution that stained the 16th-19th centuries -- and still corrupts many nations today.


----------



## Herald (Mar 7, 2007)

bwsmith said:


> In my humble opinion, there was no comparison between the OT practices, and the grim institution that stained the 16th-19th centuries -- and still corrupts many nations today.



Amen! How can anyone justify the European-American slave trade? To take people from their homeland for the sole purpose of profit was a heinous act. To compare slavery and indentured servitude during the Old Testament with antebellum slavery is like comparing an apple with a rock.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 7, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Amen! How can anyone justify the European-American slave trade? To take people from their homeland for the sole purpose of profit was a heinous act. To compare slavery and indentured servitude during the Old Testament with antebellum slavery is like comparing an apple with a rock.




I don't think anyone here has tried to justify the Euro-American slave trade. The slave trade is indeed a blot on our history and is a blot on those who participated in it. That said I don't think it lessens the value of Mr Dabney's work. Everyone has their flaws. Augustine left a woman with whom he had fathered a child when he should have married her instead, but this doesn't diminish the value of his writings. All it serves to do is remind us that, like us, he was a sinner in need of grace. I think we can extend the same thought to Dabney as well.

(The thing that gets my goat about any discussion regarding slavery is that they always get to the point where someone is implying, "South bad, North good!" That simply was not the whole story the issues were much more convoluted than that.)

As far as this thread goes I think it's starting to  .


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 7, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> (The thing that gets my goat about any discussion regarding slavery is that they always get to the point where someone is implying, "South bad, North good!" That simply was not the whole story the issues were much more convoluted than that.)


Honestly Donald what is fascinating to me is the chips on some Southerners shoulders here. Nobody even brought up "South Bad, North good" except the Southerners who perceived persecution at the mention of Dabney's name. Now we're bringing Augustine into it. This discussion would have gone a lot more quickly if people would simply deal with the question and stop justifying sinful behavior by comparing Dabney with other sinners.

Some ought to consider themselves fortunate that I don't throw some of the logic they're using here back in their face in Political threads when they're roundly condemning party spirits in current events!


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 7, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> . . .
> (The thing that gets my goat about any discussion regarding slavery is that they always get to the point where someone is implying, "South bad, North good!" That simply was not the whole story the issues were much more convoluted than that.)
> 
> As far as this thread goes I think it's starting to  .



That's why reading Harriet Beecher Stowe's __Uncle Tom's Cabin__ and the Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin is so useful! 

As is reading __The Minister's Wooing__


----------



## Herald (Mar 7, 2007)

> As far as this thread goes I think it's starting to



I wonder why? Could this thread be stepping on toes that don't like to be stepped on? 

This thread wasn't started to criticize the South. I wanted to see how far the veneration of past theologians would go (yes, I'm using the word "veneration' tongue-in-cheek). Could you imagine if this thread even hinted at a criticism of Stonewall Jackson or Robert E. Lee? I'm quite sure veins would be popping out of some PB members heads. 

Brethren, there is a point to all this. Read the words of Paul:

[bible]1 Corinthians 3:2-7[/bible]

I find these words sobering. I have my own favorite preachers and theologians. I have to remind myself they are mere men. As so, it is not a question of whether they have sinned. They have. The question is, who receives the glory for the work they have done? It we truly believe in _Soli Deo Gloria_, then we will be careful in how we treat our heroes of the faith. 

Let me share a few thoughts on King David. David was a man of great faith and of great sin. When I think of David, I cannot separate his victory over Goliath from his sin against Uriah. I see the man, warts and all. I praise God for David's deeds that were wrought in faithfulness, and I praise God for the mercy He displayed to David in the face of terrible sin. Both sides of David's life deserve attention, for God gets the glory in all.

How does this connect with Dabney? By all accounts he was a man of great faith and knowledge. He was also a man sympathetic to a repulsive practice. Does Dabney's stance on slavery negate what God accomplished through the man for good? Not at all. Neither did David's act of adultery and conspiracy negate the great things God had accomplished through his life. Dabney had warts too. More than likely he has less warts than I do. But God is glorified even in this.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 7, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Honestly Donald what is fascinating to me is the chips on some Southerners shoulders here. Nobody even brought up "South Bad, North good" except the Southerners who perceived persecution at the mention of Dabney's name. Now we're bringing Augustine into it. This discussion would have gone a lot more quickly if people would simply deal with the question and stop justifying sinful behavior by comparing Dabney with other sinners.
> 
> Some ought to consider themselves fortunate that I don't throw some of the logic they're using here back in their face in Political threads when they're roundly condemning party spirits in current events!



I'm not justifying sinful behavior in my post. I merely stated that like Augustine, Dabney was a sinner, (Like all of us). I don't see where that deminishes the value of his writings. Does that not answer the question of the OP? In spite of the obvious blot on Mr Dabney's record, his writings are still of value.

I mentioned the South Bad North Good thing because most arguments I've seen regarding slavery have gone in that direction. I admit to not having seen that here. A fact which makes me feel even better about the people that I have the privilidge of knowing through this board. That said I don't think the Southerners here were getting defensive I think they just want to keep the story straight. (ie Wanting to know where Dabney's quote is regarding the young slave/beatings thing etc)


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 7, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Does Dabney's stance on slavery negate what God accomplished through the man for good? Not at all. Neither did David's act of adultery and conspiracy negate the great things God had accomplished through his life. Dabney had warts too. More than likely he has less warts than I do. But God is glorified even in this.



No toe stepping going on as far as I'm concerned brother. I believe I've already given my perspective on the OP.

Dabney's position on slavery was sinful, period. Now, that said, I don't believe it deminishes the value of the man's writings. 

BTW I realize that you are not trying to cause a South/North skirmish brother.


----------



## Herald (Mar 7, 2007)

> BTW I realize that you are not trying to cause a South/North skirmish brother.



Nah. I'll save that for another thread.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 7, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Does Dabney's stance on slavery negate what God accomplished through the man for good? Not at all. Neither did David's act of adultery and conspiracy negate the great things God had accomplished through his life. Dabney had warts too. More than likely he has less warts than I do. But God is glorified even in this.



No toe stepping going on as far as I'm concerned brother. I believe I've already given my perspective on the OP.

Dabney's position on slavery was sinful, period. Now, that said, I don't believe it deminishes the value of the man's writings.

Is God glorified by Dabney's possition on slavery? I say no. Is God glorified by the wealth of theological knowledge one may attain from Mr Dabney's writings? I say yes. Could someone concievably try to justify a blot on history because of the fact that this man was a great theologian and yet supported slavery? Certainly, but I think it would be a rarity. 

BTW I realize that you are not trying to cause a South/North skirmish brother.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 7, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Where did he write that? I read his book "in defence of Virginia" where he talked about his 18 servants. He said (if memory serves me) that he administered physical punishment on 2 occasions for adultery and fornication.
> Please provide a link if possible.



You can find the reference in Lucas's biography. I believe it is from Dabney's personal journal.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 8, 2007)

Interesting book on Dabney's friend: Stonewall Jackson

Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 8, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Interesting book on Dabney's friend: Stonewall Jackson
> 
> Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend



Looks interesting.


----------

