SECTION V Chapter 17 - The Institution of Slavery in the West *"That Western Christendom turned Africa into a hunting ground for slaves rather than a field for philanthropic and missionary endeavor is one of the world's great tragedies. That the New World became the chief arena for the European exploitation of slave labor is an extension of the same tragedy. That the United States--the first new nation, the elect nation, the nation with the soul of a church, the great model of modern democracy--moved into the nineteenth century with one of the largest and cruelest of slave systems in its midst with full constitutional protection is surely one of the world's greatest ironies." Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, VOL 2, Image Books, 1975, p77) During the sixteenth through nineteenth century, as Indian populations were being decimated through disease and wars, black Africans were forcibly brought to America--where they entered into one of the cruelest and most dehumanizing institutions of all time-- slavery. Although the CAUSES of slavery were largely ECONOMIC in nature--as we shall see, the importation of black slaves into the Americas was primarily justified through the use of RELIGIOUS arguments. Indeed, PRO-slavery advocates had assembled a powerful battery of biblical verses, which purported to "prove" that slavery was "divinely" sanctioned by God! Beginning in the late eighteenth century, in the wake of the Enlightenment and Romantic movements, there was a growing movement led by humanist theologians and philosophers who began to seriously criticize the institution of slavery. The GOLDEN RULE was often cited as proof in the Bible that Jesus would have sided with them against the cruelties inherent in slavery. Still, as we shall see, PRO-slavery advocates had found a way to twist EVEN THE GOLDEN RULE--so as to make this seem to also morally "approve" of enslaving blacks in the Americas. The use of biblical texts in justifying slavery, is relevant even in modern times--as some modern conservative groups still use these SAME verses to justify the belief that blacks are--by BIBLICAL decree-- "naturally" inferior to whites. Before we begin, we shall first look at the historical attitudes of slavery from ancient times, leading up to the U.S. Civil War. Brief Historical Background of Slavery in the Western Ancient World Slavery is an institution that virtually all ancient civilizations have engaged in. The ancient Jews held slaves-- as did the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. Still, during ancient times, the institution of slavery in these societies did NOT typically have the strict cultural or racial bias (ie a "dark" vs. "light" skin color bias)--that would emerge in Christianized Europe and the Americas. Instead, ancient slaves could be local --from debtors, or children bought from or abandoned by their parents. Slaves could also be foreign born -- normally resulting from prisoners of war. These latter, foreign born slaves often experienced treatment that was more harsh than given to native born slaves. Still, masters might free their slaves. In ancient Rome, an industrious slave could even aspire to become a citizen of the empire (although in Greek city-states such as classical Athens, freed slaves were forbidden the option of receiving citizenship.) The Greek philosophers were split over their acceptance of the institution of slavery. Some of the Greek philosophers--such as the Stoics and the Cynics-- considered slavery to be contrary to human nature, and therefore unjust. Still, most Greek philosophers did NOT recommend overthrowing the institution itself. Plato accepted the existence of slavery. Aristotle argued the institution of slavery was overall fundamentally good--as both the master and the slave needed the other to function in society. Aristotle believed that one's destiny determined whether one was born a freeman or a slave: "... that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing, not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." Following their successful war campaigns, the ancient Romans brought back large numbers of slaves with them to work on large plantations owned by the aristocracy. Cato's writings portray the grim reality of slavery in the Roman Empire when he suggested that it was cheaper to work a slave to death and replace him, rather than to show humane treatment and get less work out of him. Always fearful of slave revolts, the Romans chose crucifixion as the penalty for revolution (both internal and foreign) because it was an especially painful and ignomious mode of execution. Unquestionably the vast majority of slaves in ancient Rome worked the fields (as opposed to living in the households) and lived an abominable life. Still, in one respect, the ancient Romans were more humane towards their treatment of slaves than in ancient Greece. Industrious and educated slaves were sometimes allowed to earn enough money to purchase their own freedom—unlike in ancient Athens. So many slaves were freed within the Roman Empire, that in 3 C.E., the Emperor Augustus forbade masters to free their slaves--if the master was under 20 years old, or the slave under 30 years old. Both Stoicism and Christianity tended to push for reforms for slaves. One of the most famous and respected Stoic writers was a slave named Epictetus! It was largely due to the influence of Stoicism in Roman society that led to a counter-movement which pushed for leniency and freedom for slaves. The Romans under Antonius Pius (138-161 C.E.) ruled that if a master killed his slave, that it was to be treated as homicide. The earliest Christians likewise considered both freemen and slaves to be spiritual equals in Christ. As with the Greek philosophers, Christians generally accepted slavery as a necessary institution--while promoting the humane treatment of slaves. Masters were urged to treat their slaves kindly-- and slaves were told to be obedient to their masters. Starting with Diocletian, and intensified under Constantine, the system of slavery gradually transformed into serfdom. In economic and legal terms, serfs were usually little better than slaves. The technical difference between a serf and a slave, was that serfs (unlike slaves) worked the land for themselves while giving their master a percentage of their produce. However, serfs-- as with the slaves-- had virtually NO legal or social rights. For example, they had no recourse to the court systems, if they had been wronged by their master (say through theft of rape). The status of serfs, as with slaves--was hereditary and therefore passed down from one generation to the next. Muhammad's position on slavery was similar to Christians. He did not condemn slavery, yet he taught that masters should treat their slaves humanely. He also taught that the emancipation of slaves by their masters was a pious and virtuous act. Muslims generally did NOT maintain the strictly racial attitude towards slaves, that was to become so rigid in Western Christendom. (For example, some white Christian plantation owners had sex with their slaves, and would later sell their children off as new "slaves".) Christian slavery tended to be (relatively speaking) more cruel than that under the Muslims. On the positive side, Christian societies also outlawed the institution of slavery before the Muslims. The institution of slavery existed during medieval times. During the 8th to 10th centuries, Germans captured a large number of white Slavs in what is today Russia (from which evolved the word "slave"). During the Crusades, both Muslims and Christians made slaves out of prisoners of war. Christians developed special charities to redeem Crusader prisoners of war from being enslaved. Wars between Christians and Muslims in Spain and Portugal, led to serious labor shortages in these areas by the early fifteenth century The devastations of the bubonic plagues and other diseases had created a severe shortage of agricultural and domestic workers during the later Middle Ages. The Italian city-states engaged in a lucrative trade with Constantinople, which brought in WHITE slaves from the Balkans, Thrace, southern Russia, and central Anatolia for resale in the West. With the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the flow of white slaves from these regions was cut off, leading to a demand for a new source. Beginnings of the BLACK Slave Trade in Western Civilization Blacks were first brought to Europe as slaves in 1434 by Portuguese seafarers under Prince Henry the Navigator. Henry had bartered with Muslim Arabs for slaves in exchange for Moorish prisoners. Black slaves became popular in the vineyards and sugar plantations of Sicily and Majorca. In this way, the Mediterranean area developed the black plantation style of slavery, that would be carried over into the Americas, subsequent to its discovery by Columbus in 1492. In 1462, Pope Pius II condemned the inherent evils of the slave trade in Europe. Still, he did NOT prohibit it! In this ambivalence, one can possibly see the powerful paradigm of Augustine's doctrine on the nature of man. In his CITY OF GOD, St. Augustine, had directly addressed the issue of slavery. According to Augustine, slavery was not the natural state of God's original creation-- nevertheless it was to be tolerated in this imperfect world of human institutions, as one of the evil side-effects of man's Fall from grace into sin. (Augustine, CITY OF GOD 19.15) Augustine had also argued that the slaves could look forward to being specially rewarded in heaven, for any virtuous suffering in this life. The newly discovered American and Caribbean colonies generated a great demand for manual labor. The Spaniards attempted to resolve the problem by first enslaving the native Indians. However, Indians did not begin to meet the vast demand for cheap labor (plus they died too easily in captivity from diseases). Consequently the European colonists in both North and South America, began increasingly to import black slaves from Africa. It has been estimated that perhaps as many as 10 million Africans were transported to the New World, with 2 million of these dying during their journey from the dirty, crowded conditions of the slave ships. Both Catholics and Protestants owned slaves. Later, as pressure mounted in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for the emancipation of blacks, Catholic leaders--as with their Protestant counterparts-- would publicly condemn bondage, while generally accepting the institution itself. Europeans looked for a justification of slavery-- so that even Indians and blacks who converted to Christianity could be deemed inferior to whites due to their skin color--and therefore "deserving" of slavery. Racial Precedent for Slavery The earliest Christians had, in general, displayed a brotherly love attitude towards ALL races in the early centuries C.E.--which included blacks! For example, there are some references to where the blackness of Ethiopians were held to be only skin deep. Gradually, however, the biblical portrayal of "light and dark" to symbolize good and evil became interpreted by Christians to also apply to the color of one's skin. According to Forrest G. Wood: "In the EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (ca C.E. 70-100) the devil was referred to as the 'Black One' and, according to one researcher, 'in the visions of saints and monks, demons at times assumed the shape of Ethiopians'. Similarly, in the writings of the early church fathers, the Ethiopian was often identified as the 'blackest' of all persons, a symbolism begun by Origen in the second and third centuries and carried on through the fifth century by others, including Jerome and Augustine, both of whom 'linked blackness directly with sin.'" (Forrest G. Wood, THE ARROGANCE OF FAITH, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1990, p 50) During the Middle Ages, the symbolism of darkness and light took an even stronger hold onto the psyche of medieval minds-- which looked to the literal interpretation of the Bible in explaining the world. That is, a literal reading of biblical passages strongly identified goodness with light, and evil with darkness. Especially influential were passages, such as John 8:12, where Jesus states: "I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." Likewise, when Jeremiah asked, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" he had chosen the example of an Ethiopian to demonstrate that an evil person could not change his ways. Some scholars/historians have argued that the religious symbolism of light and darkness as representing good and evil, subconsciously led to the religious denigration of the entire black race. According to the French sociologist Roger Bastide, it was Christianity that first introduced the dichotomy of black vs. white into Western thought. In his words, "White is used to express the pure, while black expressed the diabolical. The conflict between Christ and Satan, the spiritual and the carnal, good and evil came finally to be expressed by the conflict between the white and black." Monotheism, naturally polarized the world into white vs. black, good vs evil. Polytheism, by representing good gods, bad gods, and in-between gods, more naturally perceived the universe in terms of shades of gray. (Ibid p 51) During the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance, the Devil was commonly depicted as a BLACK man. Sin and grief were symbolically represented by wearing black clothes and vestments. (Even today people wear black during funerals.) During the Middle Ages, the portrayal of evil as darkness also led to the concept of the Black Madonna (or alternatively Black Virgin) who was believed to be an evil sorceress-- in contrast to the lily white and pure, Virgin Mary. Portraits of Jesus during this time depicted him with European features and light brown hair. Based on this inaccurate portrayal, Josiah Priest, in his SLAVERY, AS IT RELATES TO THE NEGRO, OR AFRICAN RACE, deduced in 1843 that God obviously preferred whites, because otherwise he would not have given Jesus light hair and blue eyes. As we have seen in the previous chapter, many early white Christian settlers in America associated the dark skin of the Indians with a state of sin and ignorance. For example, some Puritans argued that the reddish skin of the Indians "proved" that they were in league with Satan. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, also held that dark skin was a curse from God. According to his BOOK OF MORMON, the Lamanites Indian tribe did "dwindle in unbelief" and consequently "God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." Cursed by God, they became "dark and loathsome... an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety." (see SECTION IX, Chapter 2 on Mormonism for references.) Beginnings of Western Christian Opposition to Slavery Quakers were the first significant group to voice their opposition to slavery (beginning around 1671). The first American anti-slavery work was written by a Quaker named George Keith in 1693. In 1776, the Quakers ordered all members to free their slaves--declaring that any member who did NOT do so would be expelled from the sect. The movement towards opposition to slavery gained momentum during the eighteenth century, coinciding with the periods of the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Rousseau's ideal of the "noble savage" naturally condemned slavery as an abomination. Some religious leaders--notable among them John Wesley--also denounced the evils of slavery. In 1772 in England, the Somersett court case forbade West Indian plantation owners from holding slaves in England--declaring slavery contrary to English law. In France, the Society of the Friends of the Blacks was founded in 1788, dedicated towards the opposition of slavery. The slave trade to the British colonies was abolished in 1807. Still, a large number of educated and religious individuals remained PRO-slavery. An interesting insight into the mindset of slave proponents can be seen in Charles Darwin's AUTOBIOGRAPY (1876). Darwin recorded how Robert Fitzroy--the captain of the BEAGLE on its voyage to the Galapagos Islands was a strong PROPONENT of slavery. Deeply religious, Fitzroy regarded slavery as the natural order of things. He told Darwin that he believed blacks were naturally child-like--and therefore better off as slaves. When Darwin remained skeptical, Fitzroy invited him to travel with him to a Brazilian plantation. There, Fitzroy persuaded the plantation owner to call his slaves before them--whereupon he "asked" them whether or not they wanted to be free. All of the slaves stated that they were happy with their lot as slaves. When this was over, Captain Fitzroy turned to Darwin, and crowed that he had WON the argument. Darwin wrote in his memoirs how he then turned and asked "perhaps with a sneer, whether Fitzroy thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything?" According to Darwin, "This made [the Captain] excessively angry and he said that if I doubted his word, we could not live any longer together [aboard the ship]") (as quoted by Richard Milner, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF EVOLUTION- HUMANITY'S SEARCH FOR ITS ORIGINS, Facts on File, Inc, NY/London, p 166) History of the ANTI-Slavery Movement in the United States of America *"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." --Abraham Lincoln *"Since I will be no one's slave, I will be no one's master." --Abraham Lincoln * "For all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others. It was my unhappy lot...to belong to a religious slaveholder...He always managed to have one or more of his slaves to whip every Monday morning." --Frederick Douglass (as quoted from his 1845 autobiography) Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, among others, condemned slavery. Thomas Jefferson had referred to slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Dependence--but through compromise--was forced to strike this out. Influenced by the idealism from the Enlightenment and Romanticism--and with the new American constitution and its precepts of liberty and freedom-- the importation of NEW slaves was temporarily outlawed in every state, except for Georgia. During the 1780's, some religious groups in America (such as Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians) had also been influenced by this new mood. In 1784, the Methodists threatened excommunication to anyone who did not free their slaves in two years. In 1787, the Presbyterians resolved to pray for an end to slavery. In 1789, Baptists in Virginia came out with a resolution that condemned slavery as "a violent deprivation of the rights of nature and inconsistent with a republican government". However, this mood did not last long. The Methodists rescinded their threat of excommunication only six months after it was issued. Over time, they became more muted on the subject of slavery--declaring for example in 1816, that "little can be done to abolish the practice so contrary to the principles of moral justice." In 1818, the Presbyterian General Assembly characterized the fight against slavery, as socially disruptive. Baptists had likewise dropped the issue of slavery by the late 1790's. The problem was that although many NORTHERN Baptists were against the institution of slavery, many SOUTHERN Baptists were just as passionately FOR slavery. By the 1840's, the issue of slavery caused bitter divisive feelings between Northern Baptists and their Southern counterparts. Emotions ran so high both FOR or AGAINST the issue of slavery, that in 1845 the Southern Baptist Convention officially split away from their Northern Baptists counterparts-- solely over the issue of whether slavery was "moral". With abolitionists deploying the "enlightened" principles from the Declaration of Independence for their anti-slavery stance, slaveholders found themselves on the DEFENSIVE--in justifying a moral basis for slavery. Pro-slavery advocates found this justification by pointing to a rich material of biblical verses--which they insisted "PROVED" that slavery was divinely ordained by the Bible itself. As we shall see next, there were verses in BOTH the Old and New Testament that were used to justify the inhumane institution of slavery. Use of Biblical Texts to Argue "FOR" Slavery --Old Testament Support for Slavery First, pro-slavery advocates argued that bondage was an accepted institution throughout the OLD TESTAMENT: * Leviticus 25 discussed "buying, selling, holding and bequeathing slaves as property." Some of the Old Testament patriarchs--Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even Job held slaves. * The prophet Isaiah appeared to acknowledge the institution of slavery when he wrote how God's destruction of the world would be the same "for master as for servant, for mistress as for maid." The image of the inherently lazy black Africans who would not work unless enslaved was believed to be found within Proverbs 12:24: * "The hand of the diligent shall rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute." Some defenders of slavery argued that when Cain was banished to the Land of Nod, he bore the mark of black skin. (It did not bother them that there was no mention of black skin in the Old Testament), Thus, slavery could be supported based on "just punishment" for sins. They also looked for support in Deuteronomy 28 where God warned that he could return them to Egypt as slaves if they disobeyed Him. However, there were important differences. For the slaves in the Old Testament were NOT BLACKS--but other hebrews or semitic peoples. Also, there were passages in the Old Testament indicating that slaves in ancient Israel could hold certain rights. All ancient Hebrew slaves could be redeemed by anyone (including themselves), and were to be automatically set free after six years of servitude (or at the time of the jubilee" (see Leviticus 25:8-16) Therefore, what was needed from the pro-slavery vantage point was a verse that targeted BLACKS as an inferior race whose DESTITY was to wait on the other races. The Genesis story of Noah and his three sons Japthah, Shem, and Ham -- was used (some might say abused) to justify this position. The "HAM" Story from Genesis The Genesis story of Ham, (see Genesis 9:21-27), goes like this: Noah after sleeping from a drunken stupor, was seen lying naked by his son Ham who thought it was funny and told his other two brothers, Shem and Japtheth about it. Shem and Japtheth felt Ham wasn't showing enough respect, and covered their father in a robe, all the while being careful not to directly look at their father's nakedness. When Noah later awakened and found out what happened, he cursed his son Ham saying that as punishment his descendants would be a "servant of servants"-i.e., a slave--to the descendants of his other two brothers Shem and Japtheth. Slave defenders latched on to this Old Testament story to proclaim that God Himself had divinely ordained the black man's enslavement from this one incident.--That is, the three sons of Noah were viewed as the founders of the three races--with Japtheth as the father of the white race, Shem of the yellow race, and Ham of the black race. Of course, the Bible NEVER ANYWHERE identifies Ham (or anyone else for that matter) according to race.--Therefore Ham COULD just as easily have been brown, yellow, Jewish (say another tribe), or yes--even white. But slaveholders needed justification for the enslavement of blacks. So Ham was pronounced--"black"! Pro-slavery advocates also never seemed bothered why a good and just God would single out a whole race of individuals for such terrible punishment-- just because an ancient ancestor had laughed at his naked father who was sleeping off a hangover. The abolitionist Goldwin Smith wrote contemptuously on how his pro-slavery opponents interpreted this biblical passage in their favor: "So scrupulous is the reverence of the slave-owners for Scripture, so great is their zeal for God's honor, that upon a merely conjectural interpretation of a passage in the most obscure and difficult part of the Bible, they feel bound to condemn to hopeless slavery on their plantations a whole race of mankind who, in common with other races, have been redeemed by Christ." (Ibid) --New Testament Support for Slavery Up until now we have only looked at OLD TESTAMENT verses in support of slavery. Slave advocates ALSO quoted passages in the New Testament to support their position that slavery was not a sin, but part of the natural order of the world: First of all--they demonstrated using scripture how neither Jesus nor the apostles had EVER forbidden slavery! Indeed, when Jesus urged others to pay their taxes that belonged to Caesar--he appeared to generally accept society's institutions, (which to slave defenders-- would naturally INCLUDE slavery.) In 1845, the Reverend Richard Fuller reasoned that the institution of slavery was NOT a sin, because: "What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and permitted in the New, cannot be a sin." (Richard Fuller and Francis Wayland, DOMESTIC SLAVERY CONSIDERED AS A SCRIPTURAL INSTITUTION (New York, 1856) as quoted by Forrest G. Wood, ARROGANCE OF FAITH, P 59). The reverend Fuller noted that Jesus had numerous opportunities to criticize the institution of slavery--but always chose NOT to--For example--in Luke 7:2-10, Jesus never comments on slavery, even after healing the sick slave of the centurion. Likewise in Luke 17:7-10 Jesus appeared to approve of the master servant relationship: "Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'" (Fuller and Wayland, DOMESTIC SLAVERY, ibid) The letters in the New Testament by Paul and Peter presented an even stronger case FOR slavery: * In Romans 13:2, Paul warned that anyone who rebelled against legitimate authority was in effect rebelling against God Himself. * In Colossians 3:22, Paul wrote: "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God", and * In Colossians 4:21: "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven." Although this verse was also interpreted to mean that slaveholders should be kind to their slaves, its "real significance" lay in the fact that it had never occurred to Paul that one must give freedom to be "right and fair". (Ibid p 68) * In his epistle to Philemon, Paul wrote to Philemon, a slaveholder, how he was sending back to him Onesimus, a runaway slave, so that he would "do nothing without his [Philemon's] consent." However, Paul also expressed his hope that Philemon "might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother." Again, Paul stressed high morals and love in this episode, but Paul seemed to be talking on an individual level--and he never criticized the institution of slavery itself! * Titus 2:9-10 was even more explicit: "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our savior attractive." * Especially popular was Ephesians 6:5-8: " Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free." * 1 Peter 2:18-20, was also quoted whereby the apostle Peter reportedly urged: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God." Golden Rule Interpreted "FOR" Slavery Slavery defenders even twisted the meaning of the Golden Rule so as to make it compatible with slavery. In 1822 Richard Furman, writing for the South Carolina Baptist State Convention, argued that "surely this [Golden] rule is never to be urged against that order of things, which the Divine government has established..." Slavery defenders insisted that to treat EVERYONE as an equal would mean WOMEN would also have to be similarly treated. And as everyone knew, God in Genesis had decreed to women that "thy husband...shall rule over thee". (Genesis 3:16). Here, so the argument ran, was a clear case of where the ideals of the Declaration of Independence must be in error in alleging human equality.--For according to the Bible the male half of the population rightly ruled over the female half! Children were another example given, where the Bible promised in essence the old adage "spare the rod, spoil the child". Even in the north, it was sometimes argued that the emancipation of slaves was contrary to the spirit of the Golden Rule, as the black man could never hope to compete in the real world with the white man. That is, the "best" state, or condition for the black man to be in, was for the white man to "protect" him through bondage. Frederick Douglas once sadly commented on how even other blacks he had met, had been indoctrinated with this belief: "I have met many religious colored people, at the South, who are under the delusion that God requires them to submit to slavery and wear chains with meekness and humility." Anti-Slavery Interpretations of the Bible on the Institution of Slavery Abolitionists, fought back, largely by arguing that moral principles such as the Golden Rule could NEVER have been intended to justify such an evil institution as slavery. Typical was George Bourne, a Presbyterian minister who argued in 1816 in his THE BOOK AND SLAVERY IRRECONCILABLE that all of Jesus' teachings on love, mercy, and fellowship were contrary in spirit to the institution of slavery! Goldwin Smith wrote in 1864 that while it was true that Paul had not outright condemned slavery, still he proclaimed those moral principles that would eventually be applied in abolishing slavery. There were verses in the Bible that could be interpreted as anti-slavery: *In Exodus 21:16, one finds "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." (Unfortunately, it could be argued this applied only to whites, and that other biblical verses sanctioned black slavery.) *In Acts 17:26, it reads "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitations." Still this verse, also, did not directly address the issue of slavery. Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian minister tried to turn the silence of the scriptures on the subject of slavery to HIS FAVOR. According to Barnes, because Jesus is NEVER quoted as DIRECTLY approving of slavery, this meant (to Barnes) that Jesus was really against it! (Ibid pp 60-61) It was a creative effort. But this did not really convince anyone other than Barnes, or other abolitionists who had already made up their mind that slavery was wrong. How a "LIE" Can Take On a Life Of Its Own Truly the most offensive and bigoted work resulting from the Ham myth, occurred shortly after the Civil War with Buckner H. Payne's 1867 work, THE NEGRO: WHAT IS HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS? Payne's book is an example of where a lie can take on a life all of its own. For in trying to EXPLAIN how blacks had evolved differently from whites, Payne concluded that blacks were on Noah's ark -- not as humans, but instead as two of the beasts. Thus to Payne, blacks were animals that did not have a soul! Payne's views did not attract a large base of supporters. (For one thing it short-circuited the "Ham" hypothesis).--In general, most conservative Protestants did not line up behind Payne, and one of them even wrote a book to refute Payne's views. This was Robert A. Young of the Shelby Female Institute, whose lengthy book title explains his entire position: "THE NEGRO: A REPLY TO ARIEL [pen name of Payne]. THE NEGRO BELONGS TO THE GENUS HOMO-- HE IS A DESCENDANT OF ADAM AND EVE--HE IS THE OFFSPRING OF HAM--HE IS NOT A BEAST, BUT A HUMAN BEING--HE HAS AN IMMORTAL SOUL--HE MAY BE CIVILIZED, ENLIGHTENED, AND CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY (1867). Although Payne's views appear absurd by today's standards, this subject was again taken up as late as 1900 by Charles Carroll in his book--THE NEGRO A BEAST. According to Carroll, blacks were created as a higher form of ape-- for the purpose of performing manual labor for Adam and his descendants around Eden. Carroll agreed with Rev. Payne that blacks were an animal with a mind--but argued they had no soul. He believed the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden was none other than a "Negro" maidservant. To Carroll, the creation of blacks also explained an enigma appearing in Genesis. That is, after Cain left the family of Adam and Eve, where did he find a wife to have children with? According to Carroll, Cain's legacy was to intermarry with a female black beast. This meant (per Carroll) that all the modern blacks were, in reality, the offspring of Cain and these black creatures. Charles Carroll attempted to place a "scientific" touch to his writings. He quoted from eminent anthropologists. He cited tables of brain weights. (As a parallel, modern CREATIONISTS also claim to have "scientific" views merged with their biblical beliefs!) In Carroll's case, his early books contained illustrations of grossly caricatured blacks, which were then contrasted with beautiful lily white pictures of Jesus, the Virgin Mary and other whites in general. Carroll was not without opposition. William G. Schell refuted Carroll's argument that black people are not human. Quoting from Charles Darwin's DESCENT OF MAN, he argued that evolutionists "acknowledge that the various races, the blacks, the browns, reds, and whites, are all men and proceeded from one common origin." Though largely blasted by religious and scientific groups alike, still Carroll would go on to insist that his writings were the natural amalgamation of "both Scripture and modern science". According to Carroll, he was merely a humble "worker of the Lord", and his true purpose was in tossing out the "Negro from his present unnatural position in the family of men, and [resuming] his proper place among the apes." Although most of Carroll's beliefs have been discredited by scientists, some ultra-conservative religious writings even today cite Carroll's anthropological arguments on relative brain sizes in claiming white superiority. As Carroll correctly noted, scientific measurements by modern PROFESSIONAL anthropologists have indeed verified that the AVERAGE black brain is slightly smaller than the AVERAGE white's brain. However, Carroll neglected to mention the fact that the brains of whites ARE IN TURN slightly smaller than those brains of the Eskimos, the Polynesians, American Indians, the Japanese, and the two AFRICAN tribes of the Kaffir and the Amaxosa! Nor have scientists EVER successfully been able to show that there is any correlation between brain size and genius levels.--For example, after Albert Einstein died, scientists measured his brain and found it to be merely average in size. (On the flip side of the issue, it's also a fact that the primitive prehistoric Neanderthal man, had a physically larger brain than those of modern man.) (Martin Gardner, FADS AND FALLACIES, p 158) The physical similarities touted to exist between blacks and monkeys, is also without any scientific basis! On the contrary, whites share more similarities with the apes than the blacks. That is, the thick lips of blacks, their kinky hair, and small areas of body hair mark them FURTHER removed from the apes than whites. For apes, like whites, have relatively thinner lips, straight hair, and lots of body hair. (Ibid) Also the skin of apes under their fur is white--NOT BLACK. Modern scientific studies, which have carefully controlled their experiments for socio-economic environmental disparities, have repeatedly demonstrated that there is NO genetic difference that would justify ranking whites as superior to blacks. (Ibid, p 156) Indeed, genome studies have shown that there are no genetic characteristics that would serve as a marker to distinguish between a "black" and a "white" race. That is, all people regardless of "race" are genetically 99.9% identical, with whites genetically closer to one black tribe that other black tribes are to each other. There have been positive developments in the improvement of racist attitudes by religious groups. In recognition of the importance of black Baptist members, the Southern Baptist Convention formally apologized in 1995 for its earlier support of slavery (which they called an "original sin"), plus their opposition to the civil rights movement during the 1950's and 1960's. Acknowledgement of its previous racist behavior, was clearly a brave step to make in order to invest in the future--of both blacks and whites. Other religious sects appear eager to demonstrate that they are not racist and actively engage to increase black membership. Still, there are still some conservatives who believe that blacks are inferior as a race (i.e., the "Ham" myth is still alive in some areas). Of course there are still pockets of hate groups (such as the KKK) who like to target blacks as a scapegoat to blame all society's ills on. However, it is now "politically incorrect" to publicly issue anti-racial statements, especially as blacks are an important political block in many elections - and therefore even conservative politicians try not to antagonize them. A new trend is for conservatives is to try to recruit blacks into their party. This has also helped to defuse the Ham myth in many areas except in the deep south.