RL Dabney: "A Defense of Virginia and the South"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Junior
Recently, while a guest at a conference in the Deep South, I was astonished to find this book still in print and for sale at a bookstall on the premises.
Figuring that if anyone could shed light on the issue of slavery from the pro perspective intelligently it would be Dabney, I purchased it.
Having just got though it, my question is: does anyone have access to a refutation of Dabney's moral justification for slavery? He goes to great lengths to show from Scripture that it was approved and regulated in both the old and new Testaments, and therefore is morally acceptable even unto this day.
As for the rest of the book, his railing political invective is an eye-opener: after all, this was a well-respected Presbyterian minister! I learned some new words, and not nice ones...
Saddest of all is his assertion that though the "African Race" was originally of one blood with all others, it had somehow degenerated and become a different genus, incapable of morals or equal intellectual standing with the rest of the races. But that rubbish doesn't concern his argument from scripture about the morality of forced servitude.
 
I've heard similar statements about black people before, but not from Christians.
 
It is not a direct refutation, but here is a sermon against slavery as it existed in the US by another Presbyterian minister ~70 years before Dabney wrote this defense. It refutes many of the points Dabney makes (see especially the objections section) and it shows that Dabney was not simply a product of his time, since there were other Reformed ministers arguing against the position much earlier. However, it's not as in-depth or long as Dabney's work, seeing as it is a sermon, but it's still quite comprehensive for its format.

http://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/8/14/alexander-mcleods-sermon-on-negro-slavery-unjustifiable

See also this history of McLeod and slavery as regards the Reformed Presbyterians (Covenanter) in the US:

http://pcahistory.org/ebooks/mcleod/c4.pdf
 
One popular justification for black slavery was the so-called curse of Ham in Genesis 9. As it so happens, I was reading a section in Herman Witsius earlier today that indirectly refutes this notion:

It is added, that Canaan should also be the servant of Japheth. And history testifies, that those parts of Asia, which had been long possessed by the Canaanites, were conquered by the Greeks and Romans. ... For Canaan with his posterity, is on account of the sin of Cham [Ham], condemned to be slaves to the descendants of Shem and of Japheth.

Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, trans. William Crookshank (1677; 2 vols, London, 1822), ii, p. 140, 4.2.19-20.

N.B. It is possible that Alexander McLeod (referenced above) was influenced by Witsius (allow me to check notes that I have on his MSS, and I will get back to you all later).​
 
Just a few thoughts:

Recently, while a guest at a conference in the Deep South, I was astonished to find this book still in print and for sale at a bookstall on the premises.
Figuring that if anyone could shed light on the issue of slavery from the pro perspective intelligently it would be Dabney, I purchased it.
I hope you're able to appreciate Dabney's argument for the Southern states' secession, apart from his defense of slavery. Remember that the radical abolitionist movement, not slavery, was the main factor that led to the war.

Having just got though it, my question is: does anyone have access to a refutation of Dabney's moral justification for slavery? He goes to great lengths to show from Scripture that it was approved and regulated in both the old and new Testaments, and therefore is morally acceptable even unto this day.
In my opinion, you'd have as much of a hard time proving that no type of slavery is morally acceptable, scritpurally, as someone would have attempting to prove that race-based slavery can be supported scripturally.

As for the rest of the book, his railing political invective is an eye-opener: after all, this was a well-respected Presbyterian minister! I learned some new words, and not nice ones...
Ah! The days before political correctness! It's a breath of fresh air, isn't it?

Saddest of all is his assertion that though the "African Race" was originally of one blood with all others, it had somehow degenerated and become a different genus, incapable of morals or equal intellectual standing with the rest of the races. But that rubbish doesn't concern his argument from scripture about the morality of forced servitude.
This is sad, indeed. Dabney was a great man, but he bought into some of the false notions of his times. I highly recommend reading The Life and Letters of Robert Louis Dabney by Thomas Cary Johnson. It will give you a full-orbed view of Dabney in his context. It helped me to see the truly admirable qualities of the man, as well as his definite faults. While we should judge all things objectively by the absolute standard of God's word, we should also be charitable enough toward one another to try and see the relative advantages and disadvantages that our context affords us.
 
A few disclaimers:

1. I am not a Dabneyphile.
2. I am not interested in any "Lost Cause" mythology.
3. Lincoln was a white supremacist.
4. I'm glad slavery is over.

With that said, I think a lot of American Covenanters overshoot the mark. There are several questions that can't be answered by self-congratulatory posts on Facebook Covenanter groups:

1. Is the relation between master and slave sinful?
2. Why didn't Paul tell the church to forbid communion to slave-owners?
3. Roman slaves were often acquired through conquest and babies of raped conquered women. The "but they were manstealers" argument kind of breaks down at that point. The Romans were manstealers, too.
4. Should Athenagoras have been excommunicated?

Athenagoras, defending the church against the pagan charge of cannibalism said, “moreover, we have slaves: some of us more, some fewer. We cannot hide anything from them; yet not one of them has made up such tall stories against us.” (Early Church Fathers, ed. C.C. Richardson, p. 338).
 
Ben:

Dabney was an uncommonly brilliant man, even prophetic, in not a few ways.

At the same time, he wasn't just a man of his time, but was an embittered, rancorous, leader of his time (not all were--think of Robert E. Lee, who stands in marked contrast after the War to the immovably bilious Dabney).

Sean Lucas's P&R biography of him is quite good (though it has its detractors); Noll's book that Trevor mentions is excellent. I'll forbear a bibliography,
though many relevant works are cited in my recent book on Hodge and spirituality where I deal with many of these issues (I'll say no more about that!)

His type of racial views have been widely refuted (Hodge did so in several pieces, including the 1859 BRPR "Unity of Mankind") and A. MacLeod's refutation is classic.

It was a complex situation in the 19th century with many contributing factors: a discussion of such is hard to have in the public square in these times that don't seem to permit it. Some of what Jacob says recognizes these complexities (though I believe we might differ on points as well).

Back to Dabney--brilliant man, insightful, yet particularly flawed (more than most of the other Presbyterian defenders of the "peculiar institution"). A cautionary tale to us all about being captive to some cultural current other than the Word. It's hard to see in one's own time, but this is not an excuse for Dabney. There is no excuse for his racial views.

Peace,
Alan
 
It is not a direct refutation, but here is a sermon against slavery as it existed in the US by another Presbyterian minister ~70 years before Dabney wrote this defense. It refutes many of the points Dabney makes (see especially the objections section) and it shows that Dabney was not simply a product of his time, since there were other Reformed ministers arguing against the position much earlier. However, it's not as in-depth or long as Dabney's work, seeing as it is a sermon, but it's still quite comprehensive for its format.

http://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/8/14/alexander-mcleods-sermon-on-negro-slavery-unjustifiable

See also this history of McLeod and slavery as regards the Reformed Presbyterians (Covenanter) in the US:

http://pcahistory.org/ebooks/mcleod/c4.pdf
Thanks, Jake! I'll look those up by and by.
 
Ben, what conference? Wondering if it was one here in Birmingham.
Jeri, it was the NCFIC conference in Asheville. I have no affiliation with them, and wound up there almost by accident, being asked to do some translating. That whole group might merit a thread of it's own, if anyone's curious: bit of an oddball corner of the almost-reformed world.
 
Just a few thoughts:


I hope you're able to appreciate Dabney's argument for the Southern states' secession, apart from his defense of slavery. Remember that the radical abolitionist movement, not slavery, was the main factor that led to the war.


In my opinion, you'd have as much of a hard time proving that no type of slavery is morally acceptable, scritpurally, as someone would have attempting to prove that race-based slavery can be supported scripturally.


Ah! The days before political correctness! It's a breath of fresh air, isn't it?


This is sad, indeed. Dabney was a great man, but he bought into some of the false notions of his times. I highly recommend reading The Life and Letters of Robert Louis Dabney by Thomas Cary Johnson. It will give you a full-orbed view of Dabney in his context. It helped me to see the truly admirable qualities of the man, as well as his definite faults. While we should judge all things objectively by the absolute standard of God's word, we should also be charitable enough toward one another to try and see the relative advantages and disadvantages that our context affords us.
I'm perfectly all right with the South having the right to secede--if we can show that the American Revolution had any justification (which I disclaim). But politics is a sticky thing, and mankind has been doing wrong in this arena since Cain built his city.

The claim of Dabney that is most convincing is that slavery writ large is morally acceptable. He doesn't bring race into that one--he just shows that in God's providence slaves existed and slavery was regulated by the moral law.

As for political correctness, I wish he'd had a little. Though I would call it simply a meek and humble spirit. But the picture he paints of the Halcyon the South was, of the universal happiness of the slaves, of how everyone was at fault in this but his blessed Virginia is a little over the top. It ruins his credibility a little, to assert that any place where fallen man dwells was so much more Utopian than anyplace else that ever was. Any people as virtuous as he makes his Virginians to be would not have been so bitter at their defeat, knowing that God works all things together for good to those that love Him.
 
A few disclaimers:

1. I am not a Dabneyphile.
2. I am not interested in any "Lost Cause" mythology.
3. Lincoln was a white supremacist.
4. I'm glad slavery is over.

With that said, I think a lot of American Covenanters overshoot the mark. There are several questions that can't be answered by self-congratulatory posts on Facebook Covenanter groups:

1. Is the relation between master and slave sinful?
2. Why didn't Paul tell the church to forbid communion to slave-owners?
3. Roman slaves were often acquired through conquest and babies of raped conquered women. The "but they were manstealers" argument kind of breaks down at that point. The Romans were manstealers, too.
4. Should Athenagoras have been excommunicated?

Athenagoras, defending the church against the pagan charge of cannibalism said, “moreover, we have slaves: some of us more, some fewer. We cannot hide anything from them; yet not one of them has made up such tall stories against us.” (Early Church Fathers, ed. C.C. Richardson, p. 338).
Jacob,
Your questions are what I'm trying to get to the bottom of, since that was the heaviest thrust of Dabney's work.
 
One should try to separate Dabney's racism from the objective questions.
I thought I did that in the first post with the question of whether there was a refutation of his assertion of the morality of slavery. But yes, having rejected all his other arguments, I'm trying to see about his arguments from Scripture. This is where, after all, the battle must be played out.
 
I thought I did that in the first post with the question of whether there was a refutation of his assertion of the morality of slavery. But yes, having rejected all his other arguments, I'm trying to see about his arguments from Scripture. This is where, after all, the battle must be played out.

Agreed, and Scripture no where says the relation between master and slave is sinful. It can be abused, sure. And it almost always reflects a flawed social order, but the relation qua relation is not sinful.

And while Roman slavery was not as crude in chattel form as the Old South (though the rapes were just as common), it was just as much (more so?) predicated on manstealing (so the Covenanter argument falls apart at this point).
 
McLeod seems to be saying that the OT slavery practiced by God's people was judicial: made right in some cases by God's specific judgment on the Canaanites in the land at that time (played out by the Gibeonites who voluntarily traded their freedom for the privilege of not being killed, &c), and in others to punish an evildoer. This last, he says endures to this day, in the right of the magistrate to imprison delinquents and make them work for their keep and the improvement of society.
If that be so, then God is not condoning slavery wherever it occurs, but regulating His instrument of righteousness so that the minister thereof doesn't abuse it.
Processing....
 
There are several questions that can't be answered by self-congratulatory posts on Facebook Covenanter groups:

Oh how this applies to so many groups on the net. May the PB be immune from such, to which thank I thank our moderators for making such so. Jacob thank you for the chuckle.
 
McLeod seems to be saying that the OT slavery practiced by God's people was judicial: made right in some cases by God's specific judgment on the Canaanites in the land at that time (played out by the Gibeonites who voluntarily traded their freedom for the privilege of not being killed, &c), and in others to punish an evildoer. This last, he says endures to this day, in the right of the magistrate to imprison delinquents and make them work for their keep and the improvement of society.
If that be so, then God is not condoning slavery wherever it occurs, but regulating His instrument of righteousness so that the minister thereof doesn't abuse it.
Processing....

Sure, but we can leave the OT examples aside. In the NT Paul gives very specific instructions to slave owners and none of it sounds like modern abolitionist talk.
 
I agree with what MacLeod preached about God's purpose in OT slavery.

And here's what I have had to say (elsewhere) about why Paul did not talk like an abolitionist:

While it is true that Christ and the apostles did not abolish slavery, it is also the case that the consequences of the gospel would tend to ameliorate if not eliminate such (seen in Paul’s letter to Philemon).[1]

Had Christ or Paul ordered the end of all slavery, it would have rendered the gospel revolutionary and made its central concern social, political and economic equity. If Paul, for instance, had simply commanded Philemon to free Onesimus and not suggested that he be emancipated as a consequence of the new relationship that they sustained in the gospel, Christians would have viewed such an apostolic command as binding, necessitating the abolition of slavery immediately everywhere. This would have obscured the true spiritual message of the gospel—salvation in Christ to all that believe on Him—and have rendered the Christian faith another competing, indeed radical political agenda, especially in the Greco-Roman world, with so much of the population in slavery. The New Testament contains no explicit commands to abolish slavery, leaving it to the outworking of the gospel to address such in the Greco-Roman world of its day.[2]


[1] As seen in the practices of Christians in the early church, in A. J. Harrill The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity. (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr/Siebeck, 1995). Though opposition to slavery itself, as opposed merely to slavery’s abuses, was long in coming, as seen in Trevor Dennis, “Man Beyond Price: Gregory of Nyssa and Slavery,” in Heaven and Earth: Essex Essays in Theology and Ethics, ed. Andrew Linzey and Peter J. Wexler (Worthing, West Sussex: Churchman Publishing Limited, 1986), it was Christianity, or Christendom, at least in part, that brought slavery to an effective end between the fourth and tenth centuries, with serfdom developing in seignorialism and feudalism subsequent to slavery’s diminution.

[2] Though Kyle Harper, in Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), showed that slavery lasted deep into the Christian era, in his most recent book, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2013), he shows that Christianity’s strict moral code was particularly sympathetic to the sexual exploitation of the slave. So Christianity played an important role in reforming and ultimately ending ancient slavery.

Peace,
Alan
 
I think we also need to be wary of setting up a straw-man about what abolitionists taught with regards to slaves still in bondage. Prior to the rise of John Brown, many abolitionists taught that the slaves should submit to their masters in the hope that their owners would emancipate them. Furthermore, many of them had no problem with them remaining as paid servants of their former slave-owners.
 
Quite right, Daniel. Abolitionism was neither static nor monolithic in antebellum America, though it was often then opposed by those who portrayed it only in its worst excesses.

Peace,
Alan
 
I think the good abolitionists were embarrassed by John Brown. His insurrection (along with his murders of northerners) seemed to justify the worst stereotypes from the slave-owner's experiences.
 
I know I'm largely in the minority on this but the largest single human contribution to the end of slavery was and is wait for it................................................capitalism specifically capital accumulation from the increase in technology. Increasing capital reserves over the centuries rendered slavery 'non-competitive' in the labor market. It's been a centuries long march. If ever we are reduced to 5th century, 10th century or 19th century technology we will be reduced to the labor structures to match the period no matter how many laws are passed or protests made.
 
Thanks all for the replies and discussion. Perhaps the hardest thing, this far along, is to separate what was mean-spirited propaganda and what was downright untrue from what actually was the case. No doubt, as Dabney points out, there were benevolent slave owners who cared for their slaves' well-being and health. Perhaps there were even slaves who were content in their condition (another book in a neighboring stall at the conference purported to be a collection of essays written by happy slaves, to show that they were not all malcontents, I guess. I didn't buy it). But it's hard to look back on history with our limited knowledge and really understand both parties.
We can know that manstealing is always wrong, and stolen goods do not (as Dabney claims) become legitimate after several transactions. We certainly know that opposing sides of an issue are not always truthful in their propaganda, but will usually paint their actions and motives with the most virtuous brush. But these things cloud the issues for us down the road.
As for Roman slavery, I'm going to stick with Alan for now with the idea that God was regulating His people's behavior within a human institution that they had no power or agenda to change. As they were to be subject to the higher powers, even though those were the Roman emperors who were persecuting Christians, so Christian slaves were to submit to their masters, though that hold over them be morally unlawful, just as it was immoral to feed christians to lions.
 
We can know that manstealing is always wrong, and stolen goods do not (as Dabney claims) become legitimate after several transactions.

My ancestor William the Conqueror stole England from the Saxons. When did it become legitimate land for the Normans?
 
My ancestor William the Conqueror stole England from the Saxons. When did it become legitimate land for the Normans?
Dunno, Jacob: perhaps you should give it back :D. After all, there's people who want to give back America to the descendants of the folk who were here when the Euros arrived.
But you've brought up a real dilemma: how is restitution to be made for wrongs committed generations ago? I haven't the wisdom to sort it out myself--the best I can do is apply the law of God to my life, now, and hope no one sues for the redress of grievances my fathers committed. I suppose it may be possible to show that all of us are sitting on goods stolen in some way from someone sometime.....it's quite a mess!
 
Dunno, Jacob: perhaps you should give it back :D. After all, there's people who want to give back America to the descendants of the folk who were here when the Euros arrived.
But you've brought up a real dilemma: how is restitution to be made for wrongs committed generations ago? I haven't the wisdom to sort it out myself--the best I can do is apply the law of God to my life, now, and hope no one sues for the redress of grievances my fathers committed. I suppose it may be possible to show that all of us are sitting on goods stolen in some way from someone sometime.....it's quite a mess!

I think this is where Dabney's point has some force. I'm raising these hard questions because if we can face up to them honestly, we can blunt a lot of criticisms along the lines of "Well, the bible promotes slavery." In a sense, it does, but if we can bring to light a lot of the hard issues underlying these questions, then it won't be as much a problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top