# Christianity, the South, and Slavery



## HokieAirman

This post was moved from the Church History Forum "Advances in Religion" thread. On it, TimV advocated that R.L. Dabney defended racial slavery. I was attempting to counter that Dabney defended Biblical Slavery, but offered practical reasons slavery was practiced in Virginia and the South. As a disclaimer, I do NOT advocate racial slavery, slavery via kidnapping, or any form of slavery, although I haven't found anything in scripture that forbids the enslavement of foreigners captured in times of war (this might be a situational law, applicable only to the state of Israel during their conquests), and voluntary slavery. Here;s the quote from TimV 

"I love Dabney, but his defense of racial slavery show a huge cultural blind 
spot.

So, I'd offer the abolition of racial slavery, and any other kind that lasts 
more than the Biblical limit of 6 years for non-voluntary servitude. And 
yes, some would say it's not theological, but social, and they may be 
right. To me, it's theonomistic, but hey, somebody had to get the ball 
rolling, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that's been thinking about 
Ruben's question."

I replied:

...I must defend Dabney as I see it. I read "A Defense of Virginia and the South" by Dabney. I don't think he was so much defending racial slavery and the particular way it was done in America as he was defending Virginia and making known her efforts to abolish the practice as far back as the 1600s. That and pointing out the fact that the Bible says nothing condemning the practice, only that it instructs on a master/slave relationship. 

You make a good point about the 7 years and Year of Jubilee. Dabney also points out that the way slavery was carried out in America was wrong (i.e., kidnapping), but that the South did the most righteous thing in their situation. Buying and Christianizing the Africans (and even American Indians, etc) which were sold on Southern shores, treating them equitably, teaching them to read the Bible, etc. This describes slavery in the vast majority of the South from my studies. Cruel masters were outcasts of society. 

It was not until the North began to undermine and intrude upon Southern States rights and the abolitionists began to try to incite slave uprisings and massacres that the deep South began to make more and more un-Biblical and evil laws regarding slavery. 

Dabney was not a racist or anything of the sort. He defended what the scriptures had to say on slavery of any kind and explained how the South (particulary Virginia) tried their best in their circumstances to fit the Biblical mold. I could go on and on.

I will not defend slavery as it occurred in America. It involved kidnapping and a very brutal transport overseas, driven by the sugar and rum industry. At least two commandments were broken here. However, I have not been able to find anything in scripture which condemns slavery as a practice. If slavery is a reality, slave owners should treat their slaves equitably, teach them how to survive in society, Christianize them, then, when they can be productive members of society, they ought to be released and offered payment if they are to continue on working for the former owner. I believe this was the purpose of the Israelites taking slaves...to 'Christianize' their pagan captives.

I hope this is the right forum, as I couldn't decide where it would be appropriate. I think it would be interesting to not only debate Dabney here, but also views of other early theologians, what the Bible says on the practice of slavery, and whether or not the South did the right thing by buying slaves for the South instead of allowing them to go to nearly certain death in the West Indies, etc, etc, etc, etc....

Oh, and I know this can be a volatile topic, so - well, we're all grown-ups here


----------



## TimV

I claim that the very great Dabney had a huge cultural blind spot, that he wouldn't have held if he was more inclined to theonomy, at least of the lower case t variety. Here's a quote. 

_that the tyrant section, as it gave to its victims, the white men of the South, more and more causes of just resentment, would find more and more violent inducements to bribe the negroes, with additional privileges and gifts, to assist them in their domination: that this miserable career must result in one of two things, either a war of races, in which the whites or the blacks would be, one or the other, exterminated; or amalgamation. But while we believe that “God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,” we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus. Hence the offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race. . .incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South. _


----------



## DMcFadden

"I, for one, make no professions of special love for those who are, even now, attempting against me and mine the most loathsome outrages . . . . to teach and rule over white people, and make (a black man) a co-equal member with myself in West Hanover Presbytery, to sit in judgment on the affairs of white churches . . . I oppose........(blacks are) a subservient race . . . made to follow and not to lead..." _Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life _(American Reformed Biographies) by Sean Michael Lucas (pgs. 145-46).


----------



## Blueridge Believer

While castigating Dabney and others of that era let us not forget that "slavery" was in the north as well. At the time of the war four states in the union were slave states (Deleware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) and a fifth was added during the middle of the war (West Virginia 1863) as a slave state. Stop laying this baby on the doorstep of the south. We in the south will confess our sins--you in the north should do the same. 
BTW, we're all slaves now.


----------



## kalawine

OK... I'm looking to be stoned for this... but I'm recommending a book by John W. Robbins. Even though I am personally against slavery, I used to think that I couldn't prove from the Bible that it was wrong. Robbins does a masterful job in this booklet BOOK REVIEW: SLAVERY AND CHRISTIANITY, BY JOHN ROBBINS « The Domain for Truth (this link leads to a review of the booklet) of exposing slavery as being out of God's will. He uses the book of Philemon to do this. Here is a link to the booklet: Trinity Foundation Also, please check out what I believe to be his last writing before his death: Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology. It pertains to the Civil War and how many modern Reformed leaders and believers are (wrongly) relating their Christianity to the Confederacy. 

From Philemon Chapter One:

8Therefore, although in Christ *I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do*, 9yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10I appeal to you for my son Onesimus,[a] who became my son while I was in chains. 11Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me. 

12I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. 15Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good— 16*no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.* He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.


----------



## TimV

We're talking about unBiblical slavery. I.e. slavery that lasts more than 6 years if it's involuntary.


----------



## kalawine

TimV said:


> We're talking about unBiblical slavery. I.e. slavery that lasts more than 6 years if it's involuntary.



I would suppose from the passage in Philemon that Paul saw slavery as an ungodly practice, at least between Christians in the Church. So, you believe that it is OK for Christians today to have slaves as long as it doesn't last longer than six years, involuntarily?


----------



## TimV

> I would suppose from the passage in Philemon that Paul saw slavery as an ungodly practice, at least between Christians in the Church. So, you believe that it is OK for Christians today to have slaves as long as it doesn't last longer than six years, involuntarily?



Just another thing I'm missing today. I have really no idea of what you're saying, brother. Paul told Philemon to go back to slavery. He also told people to get out of slavery if they could. He also knew Biblical law, that teaches that any slavery that isn't voluntary that lasts more than 6 years is sin.

I really don't know how I can make this clearer. Involuntary slavery that last more than 6 years is sin, according to God's law. At least to a theonomist. Perhaps someone here has a better idea.

I love Dabney, but he had a cultural blind spot. He's one of my heroes, but when he said
_
But while we believe that “God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,” we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus._
he is spreading false doctrine, at least to a theonomist, even of the lower case t variety. Slavery, if it is for just reason and lasts no more than 6 years, is allowable under Biblical law. But being born in "the fens of Africa" isn't punishable.

I'm willing to try to make it clearer, but I'll have to have a detailed objection to respond to!

Sorry again in advance if I've missed something. I thought it obvious that statements like

_If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South._ 

were obviously wrong, especially to a Calvinist, who believes that as many as received Him...... who were not born of ...blood.... means that there is no "moral" benefit to have been born a member of a certain race.


----------



## kalawine

TimV said:


> I would suppose from the passage in Philemon that Paul saw slavery as an ungodly practice, at least between Christians in the Church. So, you believe that it is OK for Christians today to have slaves as long as it doesn't last longer than six years, involuntarily?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another thing I'm missing today. I have really no idea of what you're saying, brother. Paul told Philemon to go back to slavery. He also told people to get out of slavery if they could. He also knew Biblical law, that teaches that any slavery that isn't voluntary that lasts more than 6 years is sin.
> 
> I really don't know how I can make this clearer. Involuntary slavery that last more than 6 years is sin, according to God's law. At least to a theonomist. Perhaps someone here has a better idea.
> 
> I love Dabney, but he had a cultural blind spot. He's one of my heroes, but when he said
> _
> But while we believe that “God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,” we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus._
> he is spreading false doctrine, at least to a theonomist, even of the lower case t variety. Slavery, if it is for just reason and lasts no more than 6 years, is allowable under Biblical law. But being born in "the fens of Africa" isn't punishable.
> 
> I'm willing to try to make it clearer, but I'll have to have a detailed objection to respond to!
> 
> Sorry again in advance if I've missed something. I thought it obvious that statements like
> 
> _If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South._
> 
> were obviously wrong, especially to a Calvinist, who believes that as many as received Him...... who were not born of ...blood.... means that there is no "moral" benefit to have been born a member of a certain race.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid that you misunderstand me. Forgive me if I struck a nerve. I am by no means trying to justify Dabney's statements. I'm no theonomist nor do I claim to be educated on theonomy. I'm also not a non-theonomist. Maybe we can just be thankful that the Lord, in his soverienty, has abolished legal slavery in most of the "civilized" world. Still, it does seem to me that, even in a world where slavery was acceptable Paul was telling the slave owner to set the slave free.


----------



## TimV

> Still, it does seem to me that, even in a world where slavery was acceptable Paul was telling the slave owner to set the slave free.



I am a theonomist, and when I read Philemon, I don't get the sense the Paul was telling his owner to set him free. The sense I get is that Paul expands existing law telling the owner how to treat his slave.


----------



## kalawine

TimV said:


> Still, it does seem to me that, even in a world where slavery was acceptable Paul was telling the slave owner to set the slave free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a theonomist, and when I read Philemon, I don't get the sense the Paul was telling his owner to set him free. The sense I get is that Paul expands existing law telling the owner how to treat his slave.
Click to expand...


So (I repeat my question) do you believe that it is OK for Christians today to have slaves as long as it doesn't last longer than six years, involuntarily? (That is, in places where slavery is legal)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Also worth noting that Slavery in the New World was Kidnapping. 

Another thing is that new research done shows that almost as many Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans were sold/stolen into slavery around the same time the cross-Atlantic African trade was going on. 


And one more thing. Those wanting to slam the South need to read about my good buddy John Girardeau...


----------



## kalawine

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Also worth noting that Slavery in the New World was Kidnapping.
> 
> Another thing is that new research done shows that almost as many Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans were sold/stolen into slavery around the same time the cross-Atlantic African trade was going on.
> 
> 
> And one more thing. Those wanting to slam the South need to read about my good buddy John Girardeau...



I can appreciate your defense of the South. I live in the very city where "Mississippi Burning" happened. I will not defend Mississippi for her sins. But I do get weary of the media and some people from the rest of the country acting as though we are the worst sinners ever. Man is totally depraved... everywhere.


----------



## TimV

> So (I repeat my question) do you believe that it is OK for Christians today to have slaves as long as it doesn't last longer than six years, involuntarily? (That is, in places where slavery is legal)



For sure. And I'm sure you know there are a bunch of other laws one would have to follow to make it fair, merciful and just.


----------



## TimV

> Also worth noting that Slavery in the New World was Kidnapping.


 
Exceedingly important observation. And it leads to the question of restitution.


----------



## kalawine

TimV said:


> So (I repeat my question) do you believe that it is OK for Christians today to have slaves as long as it doesn't last longer than six years, involuntarily? (That is, in places where slavery is legal)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For sure. And I'm sure you know there are a bunch of other laws one would have to follow to make it fair, merciful and just.
Click to expand...


I'm still undecided on Theonomy but if you're going to do something; do it right. I love your consistancy.


----------



## Mushroom

I am only an uneducated layman, so please take what I have to say with that in mind, but I have a certain difficulty with the idea of slavery as practiced outside of God's law for national Israel. We can say that yes, regulation for slavery is provided for in the New Testament, but the practice itself seems contrary to a christian ethic. I have known people of a variety of stations in life in my experience, especially having lived in third world countries. I have been close to both lowly Thai water buffalo herders and Thai royalty, Taiwanese stone cutters and retired Mandarin Nationalist Generals, Filipino trike taxi drivers and members of Marcos' family, Mexican illegal immigrants and American investment bankers, factory workers and lawyers, and I can say that I found no great difference among them in ethics, intellect, or even ability, except that perhaps those most would consider more lowly tended to be more compassionate. Those who were what we might think of a higher station were not often blessed by a greater wisdom any more than advantageous circumstances. They received those benefits not so much due to a higher worth, but from a higher birth. And those observations have left me unable to find justification for using those whose stations are beneath mine for my own undue profit.

When I have had employees, I have found it troubling to pay them anything less than a liveable wage, although most of my more successful competitors seem to have no qualms about that. I can't seem to justify enriching myself while I know that those in my employ are living in want or destitution. I have never been rich by American standards, but it weighs heavily upon me that I live far better than many no less worthy folks I have known ever did. Why do I deserve better than the Thai gardner I knew as a child, who taught me a foreign language and many things about nature and life in the tropics, but who never lived in anything better than a tin shack? I am no less a sinner. I have met many who thought that the advantages of genealogy, circumstances, or intellect gave them rights above those not so blessed, more blatantly among the unregenerate, but still among christians, and even among those of the reformed faith.

Perhaps my perspective is flawed, but from it the idea that owning a person as property, and benefitting from their labor and productivity while they themselves endure life without freedom of self-determination, seems inconscionable to me. Who among men is worthy of that sort of lordship over another? It appears inherently unchristian. Am I wrong? I can't imagine any set of circumstances that would justify it.


----------



## TimV

Thanks, Kevin. You are observant.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

If you are undecided I recommend Greg Bahnsen's By This Standard. It is an easy read and is only about 350 pgs. Presents a cogent and relatively simple layout of the theonomic position.

It is also free here.


----------



## HokieAirman

Brad said:


> I am only an uneducated layman, so please take what I have to say with that in mind, but I have a certain difficulty with the idea of slavery as practiced outside of God's law for national Israel. We can say that yes, regulation for slavery is provided for in the New Testament, but the practice itself seems contrary to a christian ethic. I have known people of a variety of stations in life in my experience, especially having lived in third world countries. I have been close to both lowly Thai water buffalo herders and Thai royalty, Taiwanese stone cutters and retired Mandarin Nationalist Generals, Filipino trike taxi drivers and members of Marcos' family, Mexican illegal immigrants and American investment bankers, factory workers and lawyers, and I can say that I found no great difference among them in ethics, intellect, or even ability, except that perhaps those most would consider more lowly tended to be more compassionate. Those who were what we might think of a higher station were not often blessed by a greater wisdom any more than advantageous circumstances. They received those benefits not so much due to a higher worth, but from a higher birth. And those observations have left me unable to find justification for using those whose stations are beneath mine for my own undue profit.
> 
> When I have had employees, I have found it troubling to pay them anything less than a liveable wage, although most of my more successful competitors seem to have no qualms about that. I can't seem to justify enriching myself while I know that those in my employ are living in want or destitution. I have never been rich by American standards, but it weighs heavily upon me that I live far better than many no less worthy folks I have known ever did. Why do I deserve better than the Thai gardner I knew as a child, who taught me a foreign language and many things about nature and life in the tropics, but who never lived in anything better than a tin shack? I am no less a sinner. I have met many who thought that the advantages of genealogy, circumstances, or intellect gave them rights above those not so blessed, more blatantly among the unregenerate, but still among christians, and even among those of the reformed faith.
> 
> Perhaps my perspective is flawed, but from it the idea that owning a person as property, and benefitting from their labor and productivity while they themselves endure life without freedom of self-determination, seems inconscionable to me. Who among men is worthy of that sort of lordship over another? It appears inherently unchristian. Am I wrong? I can't imagine any set of circumstances that would justify it.



Hi Brad,

No one is any less a sinner than anyone else; we are all in need of a saviour; none deserves any of God's graces or blessings at all, much less more than someone else.

That said, God, in His providence chooses some to occupy 'greater' (in man's eyes) and more influential status than others; king vs peasant. I'm certainly no expert on this subject and have really only read one of Dabney's books; the one I mentioned in my opening post. However, this is how I see the slavery issue. I believe God uses it in His providence, and He used it in early America also, even though, by Biblical definition, it was wrong (to play the blame game, it was mainly opposing tribes who did the kidnapping, traded with New England merchants for rum, then the slaves were sold to the Southerners; then the Southerners were accosted as being 'devils' for owning the slaves that were sold to them by the accusers. Dabney defends why many Southerners bought slaves rather than boycotted the practice).

In my personal opinion, believing in God's judgment and blessings both, God caused the practice of slavery to continue in the New World in order that certain elect Africans, etc could partake in the fruits of Salvation. I also believe that God judged America (all of us, North and South) for the practice of slavery *among many other things*. African slavery may very well have been a judgment on pagan African tribes as well. I'm not one to claim to know God's mind, but He does set out patterns in scripture, and to a certain extent, I think we can draw conclusions and know when He's judging us. 

'Tis unfortunate that emancipation did not occur outside of the terrible bloodshed of that war.


----------



## HokieAirman

TimV, 

I believe you have me on Dabney. I do not recall those sorts of things being said in "Defense of Virginia", but assuming they occurred elsewhere, you are correct in your original statement. It is interesting that Dabney would have been influenced by Darwin...when did Darwin develop his theories? I tend to give little attention to ideas that do not interest me (darwinism).

By the way, is Dabney referring to black soldiers on the North or the South when he states

"If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from 
the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the 
righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough 
to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South."?

Was he aware that slaves and freedmen alike fought integrated on the Southern side? I reckon this shows that no human can ever be held too high, lest we fall into fallacy.

Great input everyone!


----------



## Thomas2007

HokieAirman said:


> 'Tis unfortunate that emancipation did not occur outside of the terrible bloodshed of that war.



Emancipation didn't occur within the terrible bloodshed of that war. The abolished institution of private slavery was simply exchanged for public slavery. The legal situation following the 14th Amendment is much worse than it was prior where the slave could be made free.

From my analysis slavery seems to be a godly institution that the Lord has used historically to correct certain peoples and even races. Everyone seems to forget that Israel was in slavery to Egypt and He had a great purpose for it. They were held in bondage for four hundred years, twice as long as the Constitution has been around, a document which recognizes the denizen status of the slave.

In the end private slavery is far superior to public slavery.


----------



## Grymir

Ummm, I have a question. I lifted this quote from the other thread. I looked at the bottom of it and it's from a secondary source.

Quote:
that the tyrant section, as it gave to its victims, the white men of the South, more and more causes of just resentment, would find more and more violent inducements to bribe the negroes, with additional privileges and gifts, to assist them in their domination: that this miserable career must result in one of two things, either a war of races, in which the whites or the blacks would be, one or the other, exterminated; or amalgamation. But while we believe that “God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,” we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus. Hence the offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race. . .incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South. 

Ernest Trice Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, Volume Two: 1861-1890 (Richmond, Va.: JohnKnox Press, 1973), 200. 


Is he quoting Dabney? Since this 'quote' is fueling this thread, I was wondering what book of Dabney's it came from. I want to do a little digging.


----------



## Herald

Blueridge Believer said:


> While castigating Dabney and others of that era let us not forget that "slavery" was in the north as well. At the time of the war four states in the union were slave states (Deleware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) and a fifth was added during the middle of the war (West Virginia 1863) as a slave state. Stop laying this baby on the doorstep of the south. We in the south will confess our sins--you in the north should do the same.
> BTW, we're all slaves now.



Brother James, it's not a north-south issue, nor should it be. Dabney deserves to be judged based on what he believed. End of story. To attempt to use him to defend the south or impugn the north is disingenuous In my humble opinion. God could care less what side of the Mason-Dixon line we live on. And to tell the truth it's a minority of Americans who care about it either. As Christians we should take care of who are heros are.


----------



## Christusregnat

TimV said:


> We're talking about unBiblical slavery. I.e. slavery that lasts more than 6 years if it's involuntary.



Pagans may be slaves for all of their life time; the 6 year is only for fellow covenant members.

Cheers,


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Christusregnat said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about unBiblical slavery. I.e. slavery that lasts more than 6 years if it's involuntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pagans may be slaves for all of their life time; the 6 year is only for fellow covenant members.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...




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.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Blueridge Believer said:
> 
> 
> 
> While castigating Dabney and others of that era let us not forget that "slavery" was in the north as well. At the time of the war four states in the union were slave states (Deleware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) and a fifth was added during the middle of the war (West Virginia 1863) as a slave state. Stop laying this baby on the doorstep of the south. We in the south will confess our sins--you in the north should do the same.
> BTW, we're all slaves now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother James, it's not a north-south issue, nor should it be. Dabney deserves to be judged based on what he believed. End of story. To attempt to use him to defend the south or impugn the north is disingenuous In my humble opinion. God could care less what side of the Mason-Dixon line we live on. And to tell the truth it's a minority of Americans who care about it either. As Christians we should take care of who are heros are.
Click to expand...


Fair enough brother Bill. However, I fnd it odd that it was OK for the union to have slaves and then use slavery as an excuse to invade the south while keeping slaves themselves. That said, we are citizens of Heaven and people of the book. We must endeavor to live for Christ and hold the rest at arms length.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

ETT is an important history; by a liberal sadly but still an important set and covers a lot of ground in three volumes. The endnote refers to Johnson's Life and Letters of Dabney, p. 396 and Defence of Virginia, p 332.



Grymir said:


> Ummm, I have a question. I lifted this quote from the other thread. I looked at the bottom of it and it's from a secondary source.
> 
> Quote:
> that the tyrant section, as it gave to its victims, the white men of the South, more and more causes of just resentment, would find more and more violent inducements to bribe the negroes, with additional privileges and gifts, to assist them in their domination: that this miserable career must result in one of two things, either a war of races, in which the whites or the blacks would be, one or the other, exterminated; or amalgamation. But while we believe that “God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,” we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus. Hence the offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race. . .incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South.
> 
> Ernest Trice Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, Volume Two: 1861-1890 (Richmond, Va.: JohnKnox Press, 1973), 200.
> 
> 
> Is he quoting Dabney? Since this 'quote' is fueling this thread, I was wondering what book of Dabney's it came from. I want to do a little digging.


----------



## TimV

> Was he aware that slaves and freedmen alike fought integrated on the Southern side? I reckon this shows that no human can ever be held too high, lest we fall into fallacy.



Dabney was for a time a staff officer of Stonewall Jackson, so he knew the composition of the army.



> By the way, is Dabney referring to black soldiers on the North or the South when he states
> 
> "If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from
> the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the
> righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough
> to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South."?



He is not referring to Black soldiers. He is referring to laws which would lead to Blacks and Whites being able to marry and have children, which he thought would destroy the morals of the White race.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Blueridge Believer said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about unBiblical slavery. I.e. slavery that lasts more than 6 years if it's involuntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pagans may be slaves for all of their life time; the 6 year is only for fellow covenant members.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


A few questions (since I just do not like talking about theology in the abstract but in its application as well). 

So, if the pagan converted to Christianity under the enslavement of their Christian master they'd have to be set free, since they'd no longer be pagans, correct?

Also, if slavery was still legal today, could we say, go capture some of the unreached tribes in Latin America and Brazil enslave them until they convert? Why or why not?

Lastly, is it safe to say that when there is a law that makes it a crime for Christians to follow God's law, aren't we able to disobey the man made law that contradicts God's law? For instance abortion is "legal" in this country but it goes against God's law, therefore Christians should disregard the legality of abortion and still consider it "illegal" (for lack of a better term) in God's law. Therefore Christians should not get abortions. Can this logic extend to the godly institution of slavery? (Slavery is illegal in this country, but it prohibits one of the godly institutions set up by God, therefore we should be able to disregard man's law and follow God's law) Why or why not?

Sorry if my questions seem naive, but they are honest questions.


----------



## Pilgrim

TimV said:


> Was he aware that slaves and freedmen alike fought integrated on the Southern side? I reckon this shows that no human can ever be held too high, lest we fall into fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dabney was for a time a staff officer of Stonewall Jackson, so he knew the composition of the army.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, is Dabney referring to black soldiers on the North or the South when he states
> 
> "If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from
> the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the
> righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough
> to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not referring to Black soldiers. He is referring to laws which would lead to Blacks and Whites being able to marry and have children, which he thought would destroy the morals of the White race.
Click to expand...


Correct. The term for it is miscegenation, and it was against the law in many states until the Civil Rights era, with laws against it being finally struck down in 1967. It's born out of a concern to defend the "white race."


----------



## HokieAirman

Simply_Nikki said:


> Blueridge Believer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pagans may be slaves for all of their life time; the 6 year is only for fellow covenant members.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A few questions (since I just do not like talking about theology in the abstract but in its application as well).
> 
> So, if the pagan converted to Christianity under the enslavement of their Christian master they'd have to be set free, since they'd no longer be pagans, correct?
> 
> Also, if slavery was still legal today, could we say, go capture some of the unreached tribes in Latin America and Brazil enslave them until they convert? Why or why not?
> 
> Lastly, is it safe to say that when there is a law that makes it a crime for Christians to follow God's law, aren't we able to disobey the man made law that contradicts God's law? For instance abortion is "legal" in this country but it goes against God's law, therefore Christians should disregard the legality of abortion and still consider it "illegal" (for lack of a better term) in God's law. Therefore Christians should not get abortions. Can this logic extend to the godly institution of slavery? (Slavery is illegal in this country, but it prohibits one of the godly institutions set up by God, therefore we should be able to disregard man's law and follow God's law) Why or why not?
> 
> Sorry if my questions seem naive, but they are honest questions.
Click to expand...


Nikki,

I'm going to do my best to answer these based on my opinion...which very well could be wrong.

In my opinion, if a pagan is converted to Christianity, then the owner should be encouraged to complete his education (learning a trade, learning to read) before releasing him, in addition to treating him as a brother in Christ. All slaves should be treated with kindness and according to the Golden Rule.

No, we shouldn't capture unreached people in South America or Africa because that would be kidnapping. We do have some POW's in Gitmo though..... One of the ways to become a slave was to become a 'spoil of war'. I'm not sure if this one would fall under the situational law which applied to the Nation of Israel (like annihilating the pagan inhabitants does).

Finally, there is no requirement in God's law which requires someone to own slaves; therefore, if the government declares slavery illegal, then no one's breaking God's law.

Have I treated your questions fairly?

Vr'


----------



## Simply_Nikki

HokieAirman said:


> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blueridge Believer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few questions (since I just do not like talking about theology in the abstract but in its application as well).
> 
> So, if the pagan converted to Christianity under the enslavement of their Christian master they'd have to be set free, since they'd no longer be pagans, correct?
> 
> Also, if slavery was still legal today, could we say, go capture some of the unreached tribes in Latin America and Brazil enslave them until they convert? Why or why not?
> 
> Lastly, is it safe to say that when there is a law that makes it a crime for Christians to follow God's law, aren't we able to disobey the man made law that contradicts God's law? For instance abortion is "legal" in this country but it goes against God's law, therefore Christians should disregard the legality of abortion and still consider it "illegal" (for lack of a better term) in God's law. Therefore Christians should not get abortions. Can this logic extend to the godly institution of slavery? (Slavery is illegal in this country, but it prohibits one of the godly institutions set up by God, therefore we should be able to disregard man's law and follow God's law) Why or why not?
> 
> Sorry if my questions seem naive, but they are honest questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nikki,
> 
> I'm going to do my best to answer these based on my opinion...which very well could be wrong.
> 
> In my opinion, if a pagan is converted to Christianity, then the owner should be encouraged to complete his education (learning a trade, learning to read) before releasing him, in addition to treating him as a brother in Christ. All slaves should be treated with kindness and according to the Golden Rule.
> 
> No, we shouldn't capture unreached people in South America or Africa because that would be kidnapping. We do have some POW's in Gitmo though..... One of the ways to become a slave was to become a 'spoil of war'. I'm not sure if this one would fall under the situational law which applied to the Nation of Israel (like annihilating the pagan inhabitants does).
> 
> Finally, there is no requirement in God's law which requires someone to own slaves; therefore, if the government declares slavery illegal, then no one's breaking God's law.
> 
> Have I treated your questions fairly?
> 
> Vr'
Click to expand...


Yes you have, thanks .


----------



## Thomas2007

Pilgrim said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was he aware that slaves and freedmen alike fought integrated on the Southern side? I reckon this shows that no human can ever be held too high, lest we fall into fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dabney was for a time a staff officer of Stonewall Jackson, so he knew the composition of the army.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, is Dabney referring to black soldiers on the North or the South when he states
> 
> "If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from
> the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the
> righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough
> to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not referring to Black soldiers. He is referring to laws which would lead to Blacks and Whites being able to marry and have children, which he thought would destroy the morals of the White race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. The term for it is miscegenation, and it was against the law in many states until the Civil Rights era, with laws against it being finally struck down in 1967. It's born out of a concern to defend the "white race."
Click to expand...



Laws against miscegenation originate in the common law and they weren't born out of a concern to "defend the white race," rather it was the historic view that it was a sinful practice.

Loving v Virginia was the Supreme Court case in the 1870's that resulted in the Universal Marriage License Act. A license is permission to do that which is otherwise unlawful, marriage licenses were issued to those wishing to practice miscegenation and ordered a minister to perform the ceremony.

If you look up "marriage license" in a law dictionary, such as Blacks, it will say: "See miscegenation." This is one of the keys in understanding the sodomites demand for marriage licenses and why they are and will continue to win these court cases.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Thomas, I believe that was late 1967  Not 1870's.

Also, it was not the "historic view". Inter-ethnic marriage, though not the majority, was not an unusual thing throughout history or even here in America until the 1800's...that is when it was made a huge issue. There were black/white couples in the North before then. There were black/white couples in the West after then (they had to move west). There were Native American/"White"/Spanish/Jewish couples all throughout. Much of Europe became mixed other than adding Africans. Also, you are leaving out the rest of the world when you simply discuss the US and Europe.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Thomas2007 said:


> If you look up "marriage license" in a law dictionary, such as Blacks, it will say: "See miscegenation." This is one of the keys in understanding the sodomites demand for marriage licenses and why they are and will continue to win these court cases.



Black's Pocket Edition does not mention miscegenation under "marriage license," though I don't doubt that historically, this was part of the development of the license.

And on the contrary, I think that understanding the past irrational and incorrect view of miscegenation as sin is key to understanding why pro-homosexual groups incorrectly think that expanding marriage to _them_ is yet another step forward. I'm not sure which "court cases" you are referring to (the Massachusetts and California cases?), but I don't think we're anywhere close to having the U.S. Supreme Court require recognition of homosexual "marriage."


----------



## TimV

> Also, it was not the "historic view". Inter-ethnic marriage, though not the majority, was not an unusual thing throughout history or even here in America until the 1800's...that is when it was made a huge issue.



That's an important point. Even in South Africa it happened, and the wife of the first administrator of the colony was part Black. It only became an issue there, as here, and parts of Europe, after Darwin. Under Biblican law, inter-ethnic marriage is allowed after both parties have lived in the land three generations, so the point was cultural rather than racial.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

TimV said:


> Also, it was not the "historic view". Inter-ethnic marriage, though not the majority, was not an unusual thing throughout history or even here in America until the 1800's...that is when it was made a huge issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an important point. Even in South Africa it happened, and the wife of the first administrator of the colony was part Black. It only became an issue there, as here, and parts of Europe, after Darwin.* Under Biblican law, inter-ethnic marriage is allowed after both parties have lived in the land three generations, so the point was cultural rather than racial.*
Click to expand...


Where does the Biblical law deal with this point? I do not at all doubt that it does, I just don't remember this and would like to look it up! I thought there was a passage that an Israelite man could marry a woman from one of the other ethnic groups as long as she converted and became part of God's people.

Also, I wonder if the analogy now for the intermarriage prohibition is that Christians should not marry outside the church? I would have to look up the passage, but it seems like a lot of the OT law had the purpose of setting apart and preserving the distinctiveness of God's people. If that's the reason for this law, then the issue is not that the two marriage partners must have the same culture (though that practically may help) but that they both be unquestionably committed to the same God. But I am relying on a lot of old assumptions about the text, so I may be quite wrong.


----------



## TimV

Evie, I admit it's a bit of an extrapolation, but from Deut. 23



> 7 Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. 8 The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.



Remember Egypt is a child of Ham, and Edom is a child of Seth, so I take this as clearly an example of case law, not limited to Egyptians and Edomites. Clearly this passage at the very least is something that Dabney would be violating by his insistence upon keeping Africans living more than three generation in the US out of White Churches and marriages.

But perhaps it only talks about full civil rights and obligations, and marriage can come before this, like with Rahab, or Rahab could have been made an exception for "services rendered".


----------



## Ex Nihilo

TimV said:


> Evie, I admit it's a bit of an extrapolation, but from Deut. 23
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7 Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. 8 The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Egypt is a child of Ham, and Edom is a child of Seth, so I take this as clearly an example of case law, not limited to Egyptians and Edomites. Clearly this passage at the very least is something that Dabney would be violating by his insistence upon keeping Africans living more than three generation in the US out of White Churches and marriages.
> 
> *But perhaps it only talks about full civil rights and obligations,* and marriage can come before this, like with Rahab, or Rahab could have been made an exception for "services rendered".
Click to expand...


It seems like that is at least part of it -- I mean, surely we would no longer exclude those covered by Deut. 23:1 from the church? [But I am not sure exactly what it means in Deut. 23 to be excluded from "the assembly."] The passage I was thinking of, Deut. 21:10-14, is possibly not has inclusive as I thought, since it refers specifically to female captives. Though I do feel (and may be wrong) that this is one area where the no-longer ethnic definition of the church has rendered the Mosaic law obsolete, even from a theonomic perspective. The three generation distinction makes sense for ethnic Israel, but today, those who are called into God's people and profess faith would not be considered lesser church members in any other context because their parents were not church members.

Though certainly it must be the case that, if restrictions are permissible, three generations is the limit.


----------



## TimV

> Though certainly it must be the case that, if restrictions are permissible, three generations is the limit.



That's also what I take out of it, at least as a minimum. Personal observations have show that it's a really good idea to think twice about marrying someone from the same "race" but different culture, but I certainly don't think a Session could forbid it, though it would be a wise part of premarital counseling.


----------



## LadyFlynt

It seems stretching to say the least to say someone should have to be in a particular country 3 generations to marry and/or become part of the church. The church isn't limited to a country as Israel/Judaism was at the time.


----------



## Gloria

> But while we believe that “God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,” we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, *a different*, *fixed species of the race*, separated from the white man by traits bodily, *mental and moral*, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus. Hence the offspring of an amalgamation *must be a hybrid race*. . .i*ncapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race*



Amazing. Truly. Ridiculous.


----------



## Gloria

TimV said:


> Also, it was not the "historic view". Inter-ethnic marriage, though not the majority, was not an unusual thing throughout history or even here in America until the 1800's...that is when it was made a huge issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an important point. Even in South Africa it happened, and the wife of the first administrator of the colony was part Black. It only became an issue there, as here, and parts of Europe, *after Darwin*. Under Biblican law, inter-ethnic marriage is allowed after both parties have lived in the land three generations, so the point was cultural rather than racial.
Click to expand...


Thank you.


----------



## TimV

> Thank you.



You're very welcome, and if we can get more people to see that Merideth Kline is trying to suck people back into a Christian view that allows for evolution, perhaps we won't have to keep making the same theological mistakes.


----------



## Mushroom

> Thomas, I believe that was late 1967 Not 1870's.


Yep, it was in the '60's. The Loving case. Mrs. Loving just died recently, I believe, while Mr. Loving died back in the 70's or so. She never remarried. They were by all appearances a sweet and loving couple. They were from Caroline County VA, which has either a majority black population or close to even percentages between white and black. I used to live near there and knew quite a few folks from that area, and they were surprisingly well-integrated for a rural Virginian county. Seems the races had lived with each other in a relatively isolated part of the state for so long that the old barriers fell down long before other parts of the country. Its really a nice place, but a little poverty stricken. I used to deliver Pepsi products in the area, and enjoyed it very much. Very friendly people.


----------



## HokieAirman

TimV said:


> Evie, I admit it's a bit of an extrapolation, but from Deut. 23
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7 Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. 8 The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Egypt is a child of Ham, and Edom is a child of Seth, so I take this as clearly an example of case law, not limited to Egyptians and Edomites. Clearly this passage at the very least is something that Dabney would be violating by his insistence upon keeping Africans living more than three generation in the US out of White Churches and marriages.
> 
> But perhaps it only talks about full civil rights and obligations, and marriage can come before this, like with Rahab, or Rahab could have been made an exception for "services rendered".
Click to expand...


If my memory serves me correctly, there were some pagan cultures with whom the Israelites were never allowed to intermarry, and some with whom they were allowed to marry after three generations, like the Edomites, but aren't there other verses, nearby in scripture that say what ex nihilo was talking about...that they need only convert. I thought that that rule applied on the basis of the culture and how reprobate the culture was.


----------



## asc

DMcFadden said:


> "I, for one, make no professions of special love for those who are, even now, attempting against me and mine the most loathsome outrages . . . . to teach and rule over white people, and make (a black man) a co-equal member with myself in West Hanover Presbytery, to sit in judgment on the affairs of white churches . . . I oppose........(blacks are) a subservient race . . . made to follow and not to lead..." _Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life _(American Reformed Biographies) by Sean Michael Lucas (pgs. 145-46).



Interesting quote.

The problem with slavery in America was that it was much more about racism (which is completely unBiblical) than slavery. If it wasn't about racism, then you could have had black masters with white slaves...i would have liked to have seen that happen in the South.


----------



## HokieAirman

Although I cannot testify whether or not there were white slaves, I can, though not quote a source, that there were indeed black masters. It was not only blacks in servitude either. American Indians and other minorities were also slaves. There is a previous post that has stated that even Eastern Europeans were enslaved in America. 

I must say, though, the slavery we all currently serve under (that of the US Government) is much better than racial slavery...at least we are all equal!


----------



## TimV

> Although I cannot testify whether or not there were white slaves, I can, though not quote a source, that there were indeed black masters.



There were White, Black and American Indian slaves. It makes no difference to the subject matter.

The best account of slavery that I ever read was an interview by a Black female slave to Indians. But it makes no difference to the subject matter. Two wrongs don't make a right. One can talk about details that would technically allow nonChristians to be held longer than 6 years, but the main point is the same. People that had publically claimed Christ as Savior were held longer than 6 years, and that is kidnapping, and gets the death penalty in Scripture, no matter how you sugar coat it.

The only way of justifying racial slavery is to stick your finger into the eye of theonomy.


----------



## asc

HokieAirman said:


> Although I cannot testify whether or not there were white slaves, I can, though not quote a source, that there were indeed black masters. It was not only blacks in servitude either. American Indians and other minorities were also slaves. There is a previous post that has stated that even Eastern Europeans were enslaved in America.
> 
> I must say, though, the slavery we all currently serve under (that of the US Government) is much better than racial slavery...at least we are all equal!



I only mentioned blacks as they were the most significant minority. I'm not surprised that men in their sin were eager to enslave anyone they could.

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looking up info in wikipedia, I was surprised to learn that there were some black slaveowners, but i doubt you'll ever find any evidence of them owning white slaves. Wiki only mentions Europeans as indentured servants, which were only contracted to work up 3-7 years and then were freed. I'd be interested to see any evidence that whites were enslaved life-long with their children also considered slaves in American history.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Not US American, because that would have been considered too confusing for the populace...so they covered their rears by instead selling the Irish to Jamaica and the Caribbean (one of my close friends descended from an Irish slave and an African slave in Jamaica). Have no doubt that some of those Irish came from the US. They also treated the Irish WORSE than slaves. You do you think built the walls that kept New Orleans from being flooded for a century? The Irish. Why? Because the black slaves were considered too valuable to place at such a risky job.


----------



## HokieAirman

TimV said:


> The only way of justifying racial slavery is to stick your finger into the eye of theonomy.



No one here is justifying racial slavery. I believe the the thread is discussion on whether or not ANY slavery is sinful. I think we've established well thought out Biblical guidelines. Kidnapping is wrong, therefore, had people obeyed that law, America would have had very few slaves, and the slaves they had would have been captured in wars. 

Alls I'm saying is that to generalize the entire American institution of slavery and to lump all slave owners in as racists is an incorrect position. There were many, many people who places men & women of all color and background on the same spiritual footing. In many cases, once slaves were able to survive on their own, and were converted, they were allowed to purchase their freedom.

Slavery as an institution, within certain guidelines is permitted in scripture. There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the owning of slaves, just against treating them badly.


----------



## TimV

> instead selling the Irish to Jamaica and the Caribbean (one of my close friends descended from an Irish slave and an African slave in Jamaica).



Right again, as students of Cromwell's campaigns in Ireland know.


----------



## TimV

> but aren't there other verses, nearby in scripture that say what ex nihilo was talking about...that they need only convert.



Same chapter. Hint, hint ;-)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

TimV said:


> instead selling the Irish to Jamaica and the Caribbean (one of my close friends descended from an Irish slave and an African slave in Jamaica).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right again, as students of Cromwell's campaigns in Ireland know.
Click to expand...


Scottish Covenanters and French Huguenots were also enslaved in the Caribbean.


----------



## mshingler

I'm coming into this thread kind of late, but I just had one thought to share from the New Testament concerning slavery. Col. 4:1 commands masters to treat their slaves with justice and fairness. I agree that the Bible doesn't explicity prohibit slavery, in either Testament. However, the principle of fairness here, in my opinion, if followed to it's logical conclusion, would eventually lead to the disappearance of slavery, or at least life-long slavery. To treat one's slave with fairness, on the basis of that fact that he is a fellow human-being, created and ultimately owned by God (inferred in last part of the verse) would mean he gets some fair and honest remuneration for his work. Hence, in some sense, slavery becomes employment. This would be true even if a person were sold into slavery to pay off debt.


----------

