Of Confederate Battle Flags and Slavery

7/21/2015

I have been rather neglecting my blog lately...for various reasons. I'm welcoming myself back with a post of potentially gargantuan proportions.

Some of you all may be some what surprised that I have yet to fling myself into the controversy surrounding the Confederate Battle Flag. I know that it's petered out to a great extent, but I have kept thinking on it on and off--as have many others by the various posts and comments I have seen on social media. And last evening, I watched a video (or half of one; I couldn't get through the second half) which set me off again.

The subject of the video: A black woman who proudly carries a Confederate Battle Flag. The commentary given after the interview with this lady was done by a black man who obviously disagrees with her. However, so you better understand, let me kind of give you a brief synopsis of what the lady said.

First off: she was originally from New York--Muslim it sounded like--and "people are so racist it's not even funny". She moved to Virginia and started thinking differently about white people when "people I had never seen before waved at me". I am going to assume, though she did not say so, that she started doing some research because she essentially said that she agrees with the Confederate position--and she did say she believes in very limited government. I suspect that she has Libertarian leanings from something else she said, but that doesn't matter here. But...what the talk host really took issue with was this: "I believe that slavery is a choice".

Whoa. I had never heard anybody say that before...and I had never considered it. But you know, I think that she is right to a degree. However, back to the very indignant black man. "Slavery is a choice". Well...I listened to him for a little bit until he started prating about how this woman could only say the things she did if she were "uneducated"...and then brought up the slave revolts (Nat Turner in particular) and runaways.

For starters, if you just look at it like that, then his reasons really just gave her more credence. Now, I am unaware of how many slave revolts there actually were--other than Nat Turner's unsuccessful one. What really burned me though was his passing her off as
"uneducated" simply because she disagreed with his point of view. He was angry, you could see that, even if he was keeping his voice nice and level.

Anyway, I wanted to talk...to get some of the stuff in my mind out...perhaps coherently, perhaps not.

Then...I saw this this morning in another article that is connected to the murder of the valiant and unarmed service men at the Chattanooga recruiting station: “Don’t listen to the lies of the leaders of our country telling you that Islam is not evil and that it’s just another religion,” he said. “It’s not. Those same leaders who are trying to turn the North versus the South, and whites versus black, are dividing this country greater than we’ve ever seen. ”

The speaker nailed it on the head. I do believe that the government, by making a stink about the Confederate Battle Flag on a monument is doing exactly that. Trying to plunge us into another Civil War (bah!) Tell you what folks, we need to stand steady and not do anything foolish--but, at the same time, we can't just let our rights be torn down, spat upon, and destroyed. As my sister says, ever since Obama was elected the first time, it is as though the nation has just been waiting for the other shoe to drop. I believe the evil people in charge are trying to push us over the edge before they find themselves out of power--just as firmly as I believe that Obama's reelection was achieved only by fraud.

However, to go back to the Flag...I initially got all fired up after reading Joel McDurmon's article (which I am not going to go take the time to dig up). If you read it, you may remember his three reasons by which he justified his call for South Carolinian to "Tear down that flag!" Slavery really was the primary one. He took the mainstream line on that one. It infuriated me. (Each of his three reasons, the first of which I'm having trouble recalling, could just as equally be applied to the US flag.) I stewed on it for days...I raved to available family members...I think I even cried a little bit in frustration. I was mad.

South Carolina buckled. I guess Savannah is right, it was the only thing they could do without starting another shooting war--which is probably why the media camped on it as they did. (If you have yet to grasp that the mainstream media is just a tool of the liberals [I don't care if either Democrat or Republican...or Libertarian...they all stink alike], it's about time to. Don't trust them--at all.)

Since it seems impossible to talk about the flag that so many godly men served and died under in defense of FREEDOM from governmental tyranny without bringing in the fact that some of the men who fought and died under that flag owned slaves; I want to address slavery as an institution. But real quick, just to put this into prospective, here are the numbers: of the white's in the antebellum South only 1% owned slaves. Amongst the freed blacks 10% owned slaves. Oh, and as someone mentioned someplace, not all slaves were black. Slaves in the South may have been primarily black, but it was not so much "ethnic" as perhaps we have been told--seriously...blacks sold blacks to whites (those slave ships never came into Southern ports by the way; the slave trade was carried out by Northern shipping companies). Whites bought them, tis true, but so did other blacks.

(And no, I will not use the politically correct "African-American". I think it is insulting to a black person whose family has been here almost as long, if not as long, as my own blood line. If it's not, then I, a white woman, should be insulted because I'm not called a "Scots-Irish/English-American". Foolishness. They are just as much Americans as I, they just have a different pigment!)

Slavery then. As with anything and everything we should not try to justify it by circumstances et al. No, let's go to our Bibles. What does the Bible say about slavery? Does it ever condemn it as morally wrong?

The first time I ever had that question scamper across my brain, I probably changed channels pretty quick. This is a subject that is vicious and vitriolic. "I won't think about that yet..."

Well, as I have become more and more confident in my Confederate-ness and more and more nailed to my gray heritage (to the extent that I barely ever introduce myself to anyone without pointing out the fact that I am a Southerner), I have naturally had to look at the subject. I have yet to sit down and do a comprehensive study on slavery, but I cannot say that I see, from Scripture, that slavery in and of itself is a moral wrong. I'm not trying to justify the fact that many of my Confederate heroes owned slaves--or even that my very own great-great-great grandfather owned eight. (Though, I confess, I have more moral issues with the fact that he fathered a child with one of them, Rachel Davis. However, even the outcome of that demonstrates that blacks and whites were "family" as H.K. Edgerton says--for, as far as we can determine, my great-great Uncle Lloyd was as much the son of John as his other, fully white, sons. I actually think Lloyd, being the youngest, was the one that took care of his aging father. That is speculation, but founded on actual reasons which I won't go into here.)

So, is slavery a moral wrong? I do not think so:

God sets forth standard for slavery in the Law. Even what would be called "ethnic" slavery--those from other nations. A Hebrew had a seven year work cycle--after which they were either a) set at liberty or b) could become, of their own volition, permanent slaves. Slaves taken from other nations were permanent unless they a) were set free or b) bought their freedom. That part isn't mentioned in Scripture, but I imagine that it is a logical deduction.
If slavery, as an institution, were morally wrong, God would have told us so. Take for instance: "Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." (Eph. 6:5-9)
Notice that Paul does not tell the masters to free their slaves. And don't tell me that "bondservants" doesn't mean "slaves"--this was the Roman world.
Nowhere, at least that I have seen, does God condemn slavery in and of itself as a moral wrong.

Now, I do not think that slavery is normative, nor do I want to appear to be advocating a return to enslaving other men in our nation--not the way one initially thinks when they hear "slavery". I believe that many, many persons, both black and white (and a variety of other "races") are already slaves in this country. Slaves to Big Government. I feel myself to be so to a degree as well. (Seriously. Inheritance Tax? Land Tax? Income Tax? Those are morally wrong! The State declaring that it owns you.) So with that being said, let us take a quick look at antebellum Southern slavery.

Was there abuse? Absolutely YES.

Are pictures like this one "doctored"?

No. I don't think so. There was cruelty. However, I seriously doubt that most masters would have treated their slaves in such a fashion. Evil men are evil and will commit evil acts regardless of whether they are slave owners or not.

This photo also brings up a question I hadn't considered before, until listening to H.K. Edgerton speaking. What did this man do that warranted that?

Mr. Edgerton points out that "we are told about these [punishments], but we aren't told that that black man had just burned down a barn with ten other black men inside it!" (I will post the video this came out of down at the end.) [Not that I am claiming that to be the case with the man in the photograph...I know nothing about him or his situtation.]

In general, punishments were a little more harsh back in previous centuries anyway--no matter what your colour. Just thought I would tack that on for consideration. Public whipping wasn't unheard of for a white man either.

Did slaves have to work long, hard hours out of doors in the sun? Yes. But no more (and perhaps less) than poor white farmers who could neither afford to buy slaves (who were quite expensive) or maybe even hire temporary help.

Could slaves own anything of their own? Yes. In fact, I've seen where slaves had enough gold stored up to have purchased their freedom and THEY DID NOT. (So maybe that lady we started the post with has a valid point...)

Was their mutual respect between white and black? I believe, for the most part, there was. Take for instance, the following story which I read in JEB Stuart: The Last Cavalier (B. Davis): The Yankee's had come through and in their ransacking of a plantation, they stole the old house slave's gold watch. Well, some of Stuart's men came through and heard the story. They caught up with the thieves and apprehended them. Capt. Blackford (the man in charge) demanded the gold watch and returned it to it's rightful owner--a black man. A slave.

Could a black man be educated? That one varied from state to state--and doubtless, some masters violated rules and taught their slaves to read and write and do arithmetic. One thing I do know is that a large portion of slave owners saw to the religious education of their slaves. Ever wondered why there are so many old black spirituals?

Was there justice for black men--free and slave? More or less. I confess I need to do a whole lot more study on this particular question, but I suspect that law and order applied to them in much the same way as it did to whites. (Going back to the video I mentioned at the beginning, one of the claims the host made was that the "police forces" were really more "slave control". I honestly doubt that. White people are just as prone to thieving and murdering and arson as persons of different colours.)

Was there discrimination? Yes. Of course. There was also discrimination against Indians, against white people of different nationalities...and it wasn't universal and it was as much in the North as it was in the South. Northern factory workers hated blacks because the blacks would work for less than the whites. There is STILL discrimination amongst whites against other whites and blacks against other groups of blacks and so forth. Discrimination is a sin problem, not a colour problem.

So yes. There was slavery in the South. Slavery that probably, quite frequently, fell below the standards of biblical slavery. And no, I do not try to justify where it failed...but neither do I discredit the righteousness of the cause of liberty for which brave patriots--some of them black men who loved freedom from governmental tyranny and justice just as much as their white brothers-- fought and fell for beneath this flag.

Give me my flag, Tyrants! (And that goes for you, you modern KKK scalawags who have used it for tyranny!!)

May God preserve the Memory of the Faithful Men who Fought for Liberty beneath the Cross of Saint Andrews--Black, White, and Indian.

Racheal

As promised, the inestimable H.K. Edgerton! I want to meet him...a lot.

Savannah link

7/21/2015 12:54:42 pm

If I may add ever so briefly what is simply a further exposition of one of your subjects above, in general, punishments are harsh, even very harsh, in other places around the world even this very day. Slavery -- slavery of the most brutal and dehumanizing sort -- exists around the world at this time, perpetrated by every color of mankind under the sun. It is the evil, wicked, sinful heart of men and women who wish to redefine and destroy every vestige of the true image of God in mankind that is at the root of this. Education will not solve the problem of sin, even as the indignant journalist apparently wishes to believe. No amount of education or indoctrination will nor can remove wickedness from the heart of men and women -- thus, it cannot remove the potentiality for abuse from any system, any order, any institution.

As you know, I have a great opposition to considering "owning" another person as morally righteous. However, there is little real difference between someone's labor by whatever name it goes: servant, slave, "wage-slave", employee, indentured servant, apprentice, etc. Such cases, if ordered according to the law of God, are contractual and the person working for another actually owes the other person his labor -- to extents ordered and limited under by the law of the Creator.

But back to topic -- surely, it is on account of the sinful heart of mankind, rebelling against the sovereignty of the Lord, that the exceeding harsh punishments and the utterly debase, degrading, dehumanizing, wicked, wicked form of slavery that exists worldwide today as people wish to "play God" and own and control other people. Abuse, whether domestic abuse or full-scale terrorism, is only another name for this same concept, is it not?

Anyways.........there is always just one more thing, you know...... :-)

Thank you for bringing this topic forward. And long may the beautiful Southern cross of St. Andrew wave freely and with its proper and true meaning!

~Savannah

Molly

7/24/2015 09:44:51 am

Hi! I just found your blog. I'm glad to see a modern girl who isn't absolutely scared stiff to tackle touchy subjects. Before I start, I want to make it quite clear that when I criticize your arguments, I do not at all mean to criticize you in any way shape or form. On the contrary, I think you're a smart, decent person.

I don't want to talk about every point you bring up, due to the fact that I disagree with nearly all of them, but the thing that really gets under my skin is when you argue that slavery is a decent institution, according to the bible. Biblical slavery was not at all the same thing as American slavery.

First of all, Hebrew slaves chose to become slaves. Generally, they sold themselves in order to give the money to their families. The slaves in the antebellum South were captured, and sold into slavery against their wills. They lost their homes, their families, all their property, and gained nothing. Their lives were dictated by the slave dealers and slave owners.

Hebrew "slaves" were not really slaves at all in a few respects: to begin with, they were paid for their work, and paid fairly decently.

Secondly, they were taught a useful trade. Generally a tradesman would only teach his trade to his son, so if your father was not a tradesman himself, you could end up a lot better off by becoming a slave. (in this way, it was more like apprenticeship, but, even better, a paid apprenticeship.)

Thirdly, Hebrew slaves only had to serve a set number of years before becoming free men again. They could purchase their freedom at any time, and the price was reasonable.

In contrast, American slaves were fairly lucky if they had decent clothes, let alone money. A lot of them were manual laborers, so even if they had been freed, they would have had trouble finding a good job. Lastly, there was not a time set for slaves to be freed. Sometimes, as in the case of Sojourner Truth, there was a date set for a slave to become free, but when that day came, the owner didn't necessarily hold to that promise.

In short, Hebrew slaves were thought of as servants, but American slaves were thought of as objects or animals, to be bought and sold, beaten and lied to. The fundamentals of the two institutions are completely different, even if we do use the same name for both of them.

You say that "Amongst the freed blacks, 10% owned slaves." I have never hear this before, and I'm shocked, but it certainly does not make the institution of slavery better than it is. As a parallel, according to the British Journal of Psychiatry, 24% of abused children grow up to become child abusers themselves. Does this make the abuse any more justifiable? Of course not.

It's easy to justify slavery to yourself, (as long as you think of yourself as the slave owner. :P) Believe me, I've done it myself at times, but as children of God, we aren't called to do that; we're called to find the Truth and live according to it.

God bless you.

-Molly

Racheal

7/25/2015 07:01:31 am

Hello, Molly!
Thank-you for stopping by and commenting! This is indeed a very touchy subject and I appreciate your gracious way of disagreeing with me. :)

I do not disagree with you that Hebrew slavery (of Hebrew on Hebrew) was different from American slavery. It was much more like indentured servitude. However, in scripture there are provisions for non-Hebrew slaves. These did not have a time-limit upon their services but were permanent slaves.

"‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God. And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.'" (Lev. 25: 39-46)

I see I neglected to mention that when a slave was freed in the South, he was provided with the necessary means to provide for himself. He wasn't just told, "You're free--go be warmed and be filled", but his former master *by law* was required to supply him the means to support himself, often times in the form of a number of acres and a mule.

I disagree with your assessment that "American slaves were fairly lucky if they had decent clothes, let alone money." The following information comes from the Slave Narratives. The money bit first: master's frequently bought produce off their slaves--who often had their own private gardens. These slaves at times held several hundreds of dollars in gold, but were content to remain in their position. Not, I grant you, that that would justify slavery as an institution if it were morally wrong. (Ends do not justify means.)

Secondly, and I would ask you to humour me briefly, imagine for a moment that you own slaves, most likely passed down to you by your parents. Do you, as a Christian, clothe them decently, see to it that they are well fed and have a doctor when they need one, all this in return for the labour that they preform for you? Of course. Why do we think that it would be any different in the South of the 1800's? Indeed, many, many slave owning families were devote Christians, who had inherited the slaves from previous generations. They cared for both the physical and spiritual needs of their slaves. The more I learn (and I have tons more to learn on the subject, I admit), the more I see that Southern slaves had more freedom that we initially credit them with.

With that being said, I want to reiterate that if I could find biblical justification to say that slavery, in and of itself, as an institution, is morally wrong, I would do so. Firmly. I do think that there was much of American slavery that was wrong...but much of it was an inherited problem that to correct in one generation would have financially ruined the South--for both whites and blacks. Actually, it did, if one looks at the aftermath of the war.

I'm looking at this primarily from a historical perspective and attempting to weigh the facts against a biblical standard. To me, persons of different "races" are fellow human's created in the image of our glorious God. I do not know if I personally, would be able to "own" another person. I am yet unsure on how much of American slavery was truly unbiblical. I am still learning.

Thanks again for commenting!
~~Racheal

Molly Sponsler

7/25/2015 02:15:33 pm

Thanks for replying! This is really an interesting topic, and you've obviously got more research under your belt than I have.

I am confused by the fact that you keep saying that slaves made money from their masters; according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Slave Codes of the different states all banned slaves from owning or selling property.

If I had inherited slaves...I shudder to think what I would really do. In fact, I probably would do just what you say I would. The question is whether that would be the right thing to do or not, and I don't think it would be. Protection from the elements, decent food, and doctoring--these are things you give to animals. Humans should be allowed the dignity (and resources, of course,) to take care of themselves. I think the right thing to do would be to free them and then offer them their old jobs and homes back. If they wanted to remain to work for me, they could, and I would pay well enough that they could support themselves properly, but I wouldn't force them to stay if they wanted to leave.

You make a fair point about the alien slaves of the bible. It is interesting to note, however, that an extremely small percentage of foreign people captured in war were kept as slaves. The majority of them were actually serfs. This suggests that even these aliens may have become slaves voluntarily, especially since the law prescribed that "Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall be put to death" (Ex. 21:16). In contrast, as you know, the American slaves were either kidnapped themselves or they were descendants of kidnapped people.

I have never heard about that "acreage and a mule" business before. My curiosity is piqued because I can't find anywhere that says that the owner must give freed slaves means for support. Please illuminate me! :-)

The way I see it, the institution of slavery, as it is seen in the Bible, is ok, but to compare it to American slavery doesn't make a lot of sense.

Americans would actually have to break some laws in order to comply with all of the rules that the Bible sets down. For instance, in order to comply with this teaching, "Slaves who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them. They shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they please; you shall not oppress them" (Deut. 22:27), one would have to act against the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

The thing is, American slavery was not just a mostly-good institution that was sometimes abused. It was absolutely riddled with evils. I think this should indicate to us that this institution was rotten to the core. And it was. American slavery was built on this one giant evil--the evil of objectification. Humans should never be treated as objects or animals can be. The Hebrews of the Bible knew this, and so their version of slavery was completely different, (and about 100% better.)

It is true that most slave owners were not the brutal, callous people that the history books imply they were, (for instance, "Whipped Peter," the man in the picture you put on your post, got all those scars when he was badly beaten by an overseer. That overseer was promptly fired.) Slaves were sometimes taught to read, they were taught the teachings of the bible, and a lot of slaves were, no doubt, fed well and clothed decently, (others, not so much.) I don't want to say that slave owners were demons, because they clearly weren't. The thing is, the whole system of slavery in the United States was not good, and it definitely wasn't biblical.

So I don't disagree with you outright. I just believe that American slavery and biblical slavery can't really be put in the same class.

Also, isn't this whole uproar over the confederate flag so ridiculous? People have this notion that the Civil War only had to do with slavery. I blame Lincoln. He went and used slavery as the lever to launch the country into war, and now everyone's completely lost sight of why he wanted war in the first place.

--Molly

Janie

7/27/2015 05:22:50 am

Ladies this is an interesting conversation. Molly you started out saying that you disagreed with everything Racheal said. Yet, in a careful reading, I can’t seem to find any place where Racheal has said that she thought American Slavery was the same as Hebrew slavery. Nor did she say she thought it was a decent institution or morally just. She has claimed her Southern Heritage, and voiced her feelings of support for the men who fought under the St Andrews Cross. (The Christian Cross) Molly you said that the war was not about slavery, so then you must disagree over the Southern states declaring their sovereign rights. That is all fine but then you brought in your glowing defense of the Hebrew slave system as if it were not possible for the system to ever be abused. Please see Jeremiah 34: 8-11.

Also, you stated that the alien slaves were not really slaves but more like serfs. I am not really sure where you got that from but you need to check your facts. Serfdom was a horrible existence for most. They were not only slaves but taxed slaves. The Hebrew model says that they would have been personally owned and not attached to the land.

Lev 25:44-46 clearly states the position of an alien slave.
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

And this is what the southern slave owners inherited in 1860. They had a growing population due to reproduction rates (importation ended in 1808) and the need for slaves was decreasing with mechanization. It is easy to say that the owners just needed to free them… Christian charity would have meant that there needed to be jobs for them to do. Many of them were trained and skilled but others were not. If you read the Slave Narratives, you will find it repeatedly said, “freedom was good but we weren’t ready for it, we needed more time.” It is quite possible that the owners cared more than they are given credit and knew what was needed and were working toward the economic solution of ending slavery in a fiscally responsible way, in due time. We will never know because the north came in and destroyed the economy of the south which took over a hundred years to rebuild. Both blacks and whites suffered because of it.

Going back to your arguments about Hebrew slavery, you have neglected the Roman institution of slavery (which was absolutely brutal). Racheal stated Eph 6: 5-9 where Paul encourages the slaves to be faithful to their masters and masters to be just. There are also the slaves in Caesar’s household (Phil 4:23) and of course the precious love of Paul for Onesiumus in Philemon. Onesiumus was a runaway slave and under Roman law was subject to execution.

Taking your example, (which you stated as Deut 22:27, but is actually Deut 23:15-16), Paul would have been in violation of the Hebrew law sending Onesiumus back to Philemon. Because Paul was dealing with Roman slavery and not Hebrew he was applying Hebrew (Biblical) principle within the Roman system. Teaching Onesiumus and Philemon how to keep the law of God within the ungodly system. By saying “that American slavery was not just a mostly-good institution that was sometimes abused. It was absolutely riddled with evils,” you are removing any possibility that Christians might have been applying the law of God to their circumstances and working toward the good of their slaves.

It is easy to sit at our computers and agree to disagree. Reality of life is that Biblical application often is complicated and we need to be very careful not to sit in judgment of those that have gone before us without knowing all the facts. Slavery is a huge topic, and American slavery varied from state to state and from time period to time period. So I encourage both of you to continue reading and learning; and to be careful in the process to use wisdom and knowledge.

Molly

7/30/2015 11:55:36 am

Janie, I think you've misunderstood a lot of what I said. sorry, I should have explained myself better. ;)

What I mean when I say that the war wasn't about slavery was this: Lincoln wanted the civil war, but he could have cared less about the slaves. He simply wanted the States in one piece. When asked what his stance on abolition was, he actually said, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." He didn't care whether the slaves were freed or not, but he has since been painted as the great liberator of the slaves, the man who couldn't stand by and see other men treated like animals. Because of this, the Confederate flag has come to symbolize slavery, and nothing else, to a lot of people. I didn't mean to take any particular stance on the secession of the Southern states. I just meant that I think the view of the South as a country of evil slave owning monsters is probably an incorrect view. That was all I meant by that (admittedly vague) statement.

Yes, I agree, the slaves needed to be better prepared before being freed. Consider though: why weren't they prepared for freedom? It sure as heck wasn't because they'd been treated the same way that free men were treated. There must have been some difference in treatment, and if that difference led to the slaves not being ready for freedom, well, that was a problem.

I actually wouldn't say that I have "neglected" Roman slavery. I was comparing Hebrew slavery and American slavery. Since, as you say, Roman slavery was quite different from Hebrew slavery, it just wasn't relevant to the discussion.

The matter of Philimon's slave was rather a special case. If you read that letter, you can see that Paul wasn't really saying, "I'm sending Onesiumus back to you. Do with him as you will." He actually says, "though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love" (Philem 8-9). He then goes on to ask Philemon to free Onesiumus. I think it's pretty clear that, although Philemon technically could keep Onesiumus, Paul isn't presenting that as an option. I think you're right about Paul "applying Hebrew principle within the Roman system." Does this make the Roman system any better? No. Paul knew that he couldn't get rid of that system, but he would have if he had a choice in the matter.This is the same as in the other example that you brought up, when he told Christian slaves to be obedient to their masters. He knew that he couldn't free them all, so he reminded them to be holy DESPITE the evil world they lived in.
I don't know how I managed to give the wrong numbers on those verses. I was actually looking in a bible at the time. ;P I just checked, though, and you're right, it is 23:15-16. Thanks for the correction.

The slave owners, unlike st. Paul, had the power to free their slaves, so they should have done it, since owning, selling and buying people as if they were objects is always evil. That said, (and at the risk of repeating myself again,) I'm not trying to demonize the slave owners. I'm sure they were decent people, but that doesn't change the fact that they perpetuated a very very flawed system of slavery. In a more extreme parallel, Oliver Cromwell wrote once in his diary, "416 Catholics killed today. God is with us." He was absolutely convinced he was doing the right thing. He was certain that God wanted him to kill those Catholics. Did that make the massacres any more justifiable? No. Of course not. So that is part of my point: even if done with the best of intentions and the belief that the Bible backs you up, sin is still sin.
the other half of my point is this: Whether or not Cromwell was nice in other ways is immaterial if one is discussing, say, anti-Catholicism in general, because we are not interested in the man, but only in the anti-Catholic things done by him (and others.)

In a nutshell, I certainly never said that the Hebrews were flawless, or that American slave owners were completely evil. I would never say that; both of these groups were comprised of human beings. None of us are perfect, and none of us are so bad as to be irredeemable. I was interested solely in these two different systems of slavery, and I simply mean to say that they are different, and that one is based on a better foundation than the other. Does that make more sense?

--Molly

Janie

7/31/2015 11:59:47 am

Molly,
“Consider though: why weren't they prepared for freedom? It sure as heck wasn't because they'd been treated the same way that free men were treated.”

I think it had to do with the understanding of freedom. Freedom is self-government. By 1860, these people had not been free for generations. As a culture and as individuals, they had to learn to govern themselves. That is what I think the former slaves in the Narratives were talking about. They weren’t ready for the responsibility of being free. While many had responsible and trusted positions, the actual being free was something they had to adapt to. They not only instantly had to become responsible for their housing, food, clothing, medical, etc. They also had to be responsible for their time and all their actions.

Actually, Paul does not tell Philemon to “free Onesiumus”. While it can certainly be understood that way, it can also be understood that Paul was pleading for the life of Onesiumus who was not only a runaway slave but probably a thief as well. When he returned to Philemon he was facing possible execution.

“Paul applying Hebrew principle within the Roman system. Does this make the Roman system any better?”

Slavery is a part of history; it is still prevalent in the world today. Can people apply Biblical principles to something so horrible? Yes! Does it make the system better? Well, frankly, yes. By law, Philemon could have had Onesiumus executed. When Paul exhorts slave owners to treat their slaves with care, he is exhorting them to act as brethren to those that he owns. Does that make the system better? Yes. Is it possible to own a slave and treat him like a brethren? Paul thought so.

“Paul knew that he couldn't get rid of that system, but he would have if he had a choice in the matter.”

You seem to be postulating here. Paul did have a choice in the matter. He was an apostle, he spoke with authority to the Church, and he had the power to dictate to the Ephesian Christians that they needed to free their slaves. But he did not. If all slavery is evil, then Paul was endorsing evil in these verses instead of speaking against it.

“since owning, selling and buying people as if they were objects is always evil.”

Is it always evil? Is that what Scripture says? Consider Lev 25 verses 44-45 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property.

This clearly says that the alien slaves could be bought and owned and passed down as property. This is God’s law to the Hebrew people, if what you say is true, then your statement about owning, selling and buying people as “always evil”, would mean that God ordained evil.

Molly

7/31/2015 06:55:45 pm

Janie,

I would argue that if people shouldn't be kept enslaved for such a long time they can't deal with freedom. Human beings should be free to decide what to do with their resources and energy. We are called, after all, to follow Christ's example, correct? Did Christ enslave us and force us to do his will? No, he didn't. On the contrary, he gave mankind more freedom than it had ever had before.

We shouldn't need biblical proof that objectification is evil. That's just common sense; Humans are creations of God, and because of that, they deserve to be treated with dignity. If you need proof that slavery as it existed in the American South was unbiblical (which is, after all, what this conversation is supposed to be about,) look no further than 1 Timothy 1:10-11, which states that slave traders do what "is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." And what was it that they did that was so evil? Why, nothing else but the buying and selling of human beings. How does this apply to American slavery? Slave traders, remember, were absolutely vital to American slavery; without them it is highly doubtful there would have been any slavery in the States.

I think it's pretty clear that Paul wants Onesimus freed. He does, after all, say to take Onesimus back "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother--especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." (Philemon 16) One simply cannot keep a man as his slave and "no longer as a slave." it's oxymoronic.

You're right, Onesimus was a criminal in his society. After his wrongdoing, though, he repented and was baptized. Paul was not only asking for Philemon to send Onesimus back to help him, but he was also reinforcing the idea of baptismal forgiveness and the new life given by baptism.

You have to realize that asking Philemon to do this was an incredibly revolutionary thing for Paul to do. By asking Philemon to spare Onesimus' life and even to free him and treat him like a brother, Paul was basically saying, "this human law has been rendered invalid. Not only do you have no obligation to follow it, but you have a duty to reject it." He was, in a small way, destroying the system that was in place at the time.

--Molly

Racheal

7/27/2015 07:39:22 am

Greetings, Molly!

I hope not to drown you with my following comment... :)

First off, I want to firmly declare that in no way, shape or form can the slave trade be condoned. (It definitely and without question breaks the Law of God!!) However, it is worth noting, as history has shown, God sovereignly used this horrific evil to bring many souls to Him who otherwise might never had heard the gospel. It's a humbling thought to consider that "what man meant for evil, God used for good". I have found where, interestingly, former slaves themselves declared this with grateful hearts. History if so fascinating when one really looks at the broader picture. (Also, I disagree with any and all white men, no matter how much I might admire them on other fronts, who think/thought that blacks are intellectually inferior. That is a lie.)

"...the Slave Codes of the different states all banned slaves from owning or selling property."

Property: i.e. Land and houses. Not personal possessions. A slave could own things, just not property (as defined above). Here's an interesting view (probably from the Slave Narratives...I found it in another book): “Sometimes we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed.” [Former slave from Alabama.] Pretty astounding!

“I have never heard about that "acreage and a mule" business before. My curiosity is piqued because I can't find anywhere that says that the owner must give freed slaves means for support.”

Different States had different Slave Laws--some more just than others. I cannot speak for them all, for I have not done enough research yet, but in Virginia at least it was forbidden for a master to free his slave "without providing for their removal to new homes". That wording (from Rev. Dabney) may sound somewhat callous, but in reality, it means that, as I mentioned previously that one simply couldn't just kick one's slave to the curb with just the clothes on his back and whatever cash he may have accumulated. No, he had to at least have had something to carry him through until he had a new job. Perhaps I spoke beyond the full extent of my knowledge by saying “acreage and a mule”. That really was an example of the lack of callous “dumping” of a slave into a wider world. Perhaps, it would have been a bit of land, perhaps lining up the new job, perhaps a monetary gift...the gist being it was illegal to *not* provide for the further livihood of one's slave so that he would neither starve nor be driven to theft before he found new work. I do need to do a quite a bit more research on this particular item in order to be really conversant on it.

In reference to the breaking of American civil law to keep the moral law concerning runaway slaves...I'm not quite convinced that it is so cut and dried. On the surface it does seem that way, but Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon suddenly throws a different perspective on it. It would seem, on the surface, that Paul was breaking the Law to keep man's law. (And also bringing a contradiction into Scripture—which being infallible there is no way that it really *is* a contradiction.) Anyway, I cannot explain in great detail, for as I have said, I have yet to do a comprehensive study on the topic, but seeing these two apparent contradictory commands it leaves me thinking. What I notice right off is that Paul did not force Onesimus to return to his master, rather he (apparently) convinced the now-born again slave to return—for such was his duty to his master. Obedience to masters is commanded in Scripture. Anyway, I think, were I in the position of a person receiving a runaway slave into my home, I would attempt to determine why said slave had run off. If he had legitimate reasons (such as abuse), I would break man's law in a heart beat. On the other hand, if he had no legitimate reasons, I would, as Paul, speak to the man and inform him—from Scripture—that it was his duty to return to his master. I would by no means attempt to force him to return though, but leave it to his own conscience. (I find that this subject brings the question to my mind as to how I would act if I were a slave myself. Being born free and of a rather independent nature, I would probably have difficulty in being the most submissive servant. In my rebellion against a master, I would be rebelling against God. Providing, of course, that that rebellion was against just and reasonable requests and duties. Any command to sin should and must be withstood no matter what one's station in life.)

“The thing is, American slavery was not just a mostly-good institution that was sometimes abused. ... The thing is, the whole system of slavery in the United States was not good, and it definitely wasn't biblical....I just believe that American slavery and biblical slavery can't really be put in the same class.”

Perhaps not, but at the same time, we must take into account that many, many persons who ow

Racheal

7/27/2015 11:22:12 am

(Oops...it obviously didn't take my whole comment. Sorry.)

I said something along the line of ...we must take into account that many, many persons who owned slaves--indeed many, many of the slaves themselves--were Bible-believing Christians who were striving to be obedient to the Law of God within the inherited institution that they lived with. No, American slavery did not consistently live up to biblical standards...but at the same time I do not think that it always broke them either. The evil that was present should be called evil...but the good that was there shouldn't be hidden either; for the sake of history and truth. All institutions that fallen humans are involved with will be abused. Slavery, no matter where it is found, is no different. Indeed, I thank God that this form of slavery is no longer existent in our nation.

~~Racheal

Molly

7/30/2015 10:51:54 am

Thanks for replying to my comments. I have really enjoyed this conversation. It's been most edifying. :-)

Basically, my point is that American Slavery was intrinsically bad, so, while not everything every slave owner did was evil, (they weren't demons, after all,) and while slave owners did try to do the right thing by their slaves, the way they came by their slaves, (by the buying and selling of captive persons,) was basically evil. We can't condone the perpetuation of evil just because some good came of it. Neither can evil be condoned because the people who are committing the evil had good intentions.

Sure, there was some good in the slave owners, but they would have been a great deal better if they had not owned slaves.
But I'm sure you agree with this.

Again, thanks for discussing this with me.
--Molly

Molly

7/30/2015 10:53:51 am

Oh, and thanks for explaining about those laws. I guess I misunderstood what I had read.

Janie

8/2/2015 10:54:44 am

Molly said:
“If you need proof that slavery as it existed in the American South was unbiblical (which is, after all, what this conversation is supposed to be about,)”

Molly, if you were to go back and re-read the original post, I think you will find that this post was not about slavery in the American South. Racheal started the topic off by asking “What does the Bible say about slavery? Does it ever condemn it as morally wrong?”

The following are the bullet points she used:

“God sets forth standard for slavery in the Law.”

“If slavery, as an institution, were morally wrong, God would have told us so.”

“Nowhere, at least that I have seen, does God condemn slavery in and of itself as a moral wrong.”

Perhaps she was not as careful in her transitional statements as she should have been, but she never endorsed American slavery. You entered into the conversation and defined her terms for her. You are the one that has continued to bring American slavery into the forefront of the conversation and now you have again redefined terms from “American Slavery” to “the American South”. Through the course of this blog and comment section you have shifted the topic from Biblical Slavery, to American Slavery, and now to the American South.

Racheal said: “Slavery…. As with anything and everything we should not try to justify it by circumstances et al. No, let's go to our Bibles. What does the Bible say about slavery?”

You brought in the Hebrew model, I brought in the Roman model because I believe the Old and New Testaments are not two separate documents. Now you have come back to claim that we do not need Scripture.

You said that, “We shouldn't need biblical proof that objectification is evil. That's just common sense;”

Without the Bible how are we to define evil? Is it something we collectively feel/think is wrong? I define evil as sin; sin is any want of conformity unto the law of God. Where do we find the law of God? In the Bible. You have defined evil as something involving common sense or natural law.

Thank-you for clarifying your true position, I better understand your foundational philosophy. We have a fundamental difference because I believe in the Word of God, as the Word of God, and that it is to dictate what I am to believe about all things pertaining to God and to man. This also explains to me why you have twice refused to accept Lev 25:44-46 as Scriptural evidence against what you have said. I must assume it is because your common sense declares this portion of the Bible as invalid.

I don’t think there is a lot more that can be said. But I do not wish to leave any doubts in the readers minds….I do not endorse the enslaving of humans, and I do believe a case can be made that American slavery was not Biblical. Yet it is impossible to find in Scripture that all slavery is evil. You yourself have said that; “The way I see it, the institution of slavery, as it is seen in the Bible, is ok” but then you contradicted yourself by saying “all slavery is evil”.

And foundationally, I think there is another place where we differ. I accept the fact that slavery was historically (and still is) something that existed. Historically, it cannot be changed. I see history as God’s working through people groups throughout time. I find in Scripture the Abrahamic, Hebrew, Babylonia, Assyrian, and the Roman models of slavery. I see that God has used it to benefit people and to punish them. I see that God ordained these things to happen throughout time for his own purpose and for his own glory. I believe that God is sovereign so I have to reject my common sense and trust him and his word, trying to understand that his ways are not necessarily my own. Personally, I believe it is not in my best interest to argue against the sovereign God.

I also must study the Bible to try and find the right answers concerning slavery because it does still exist in the world around us. I cannot do that without Christ and his Word to help me. I need to be able to define slavery, evil, and righteousness from a Biblical view. There are many reasons for this, mostly because feelings or natural law could easily bring civilization down to survival of the fittest. We already are seeing this in our cultural influences via literature and media.

According to I Cor 1:27, there are many things in the Bible that offend our common sense and when we try to explain away God’s Word saying we do not need it, we prove ourselves to be foolish. Our Lord died on a cross, the exact same inhumane punishment that was usually reserved for slaves. He did this to free us; but to free us from what? The punishment that we deserved according to the Law of God. By doing so he has become our Lord, our Master and we are to be faithful slaves (doulos) of Christ.

Molly

8/2/2015 04:35:06 pm

Janie, Janie, Janie!

the conversation I was referring to was the one Rachael and I were having. No matter how good it was, I wouldn't consider a blog post a "conversation" by itself. And if you read our comments, we were discussing American Slavery and Hebrew Slavery.

Hold on there a minute! "slavery in the American South" and "the American South" are two very different things. I don't mind you taking issue with my ideas, but please don't misquote me. :P

Do you believe in such a thing as a conscience? I do, and that is why I, (possibly not with the best choice of words,) called natural law "common sense." Keep in mind that I don't have any atheistic ideas about natural law. I believe it was written into us, if you will, by God.

The Bible is a very important resource, as far as moral decisions go. I myself wouldn't go without it. But really, (and please don't stop reading here,) how necessary is it? Remember, someone had to write the Bible, and there was quite a long time before Christians had the Bible (as we know it,) available to them.

If I have "ignored" Lev.25:44-46, can I say that you ignored Tim. 1:10-11, which I brought up in my last comment? We have to take individual verses in the context of the entire Bible.

I didn't mean to contradict myself. I obviously was throwing the term "slavery" around a little bit. What I meant was that, while Hebrew slavery was fine, all other kinds of slavery I have heard of were not, because they were founded on completely different ideas. (keeping your neighbor alive and prospering vs. capturing people and forcing them to work for you and, in certain cultures, killing them just for the fun of it.)

Good things can come out of any situation, even enslavement, you're right. Enslavement can be good for the slave's soul, but I'm worried more about the slaver's.

And for the record, God is reasonable. Even if we don't understand the things he does, they are always based in truth and order, which both must be reasonable. While they may contradict all the stupid preconceived notions we've packed into our heads, they will never actually contradict our consciences.

and now, I've probably accidentally really offended you. sorry. I feel like our ideas are so far off from each other that it might be too hard to bridge the gap. Do you know what I mean?

Janie

8/4/2015 12:56:39 pm

Molly,
I am not sure why you should feel that you have offended me. Honest interchange is not offending.

“Hold on there a minute! "slavery in the American South" and "the American South" are two very different things. I don't mind you taking issue with my ideas, but please don't misquote me.”

My point was that you went from Biblical Slavery, to American slavery and continued to narrow down and redefine the topic to only slavery in the American South. Slavery had a long and enduring history in the north. When Lincoln emancipated the Southern slaves in 1863, he did not do the same for the northern slaves. They were not legally freed until almost three years later. By narrowing the topic all the way down to “slavery in the American South” you continued to redirect the focus away from the larger historic question. African slavery was not just a southern problem but one that began in the very early 1600’s within the British colonies; by 1860, those in the south had inherited the problem from previous generations. It is a very huge historical topic with a lot of facets. That is all that I meant.

I apologize; I did not realize that you expected a comeback on the I Timothy reference.

I Timothy 1:8-11
“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”

When one is digging for truth…it is best to go to the original languages. It is interesting, that this is the only place that this particular Greek word (enslaver) shows up in the Bible. To define the word: a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer.

In your 1 Timothy passage, verse 8 refers to the law; thus the remainder of the passage would be a reference to the law of God. There are three major passages in the law which speak of slavery (both Hebrew and the alien) Two of them refer to Hebrew to Hebrew slavery and the other one is about Hebrew to alien slaves. I could take the time to make further comments about this but since you have shown no previous interest I will not bother to waste our time.

You are 100% correct that without the slave traders there would have been little to no slavery in America history; unless you consider the slaves captured by Indians, the white Irish slaves, and the indentured servants that got over here and were treated harshly. Oh yes, and there were Chinese slaves. And we don’t want to forget the wage slaves… and currently we have sex slaves.

The Black slave trade was horrifically brutal. Nothing about the slave trading industry was just. It was a great day when it was outlawed in this country in 1808! Some of them were captured peoples from warring tribes sold to the slavers, while probably most were just hunted down by enterprising Africans for the money. The bulk of the slaves went to South American and to the islands, where they were then brutally dealt with, but that is another piece of history.

“The Bible is a very important resource, as far as moral decisions go... But really, how necessary is it?”

Well, if you are a Christian, the Bible is essential for your understanding of your faith and is a guide for your practice. If you are not, it is as you say a good reference book for moral decisions but does not differ from other good books that speak of moral objectives. Since all men are in need of salvation and a right relationship with God, I would say that the Bible is very necessary for all men.

Since the subject under consideration was a question of Biblical morality and justice. It seems odd to me that you have cited Scripture as if to support your statements, but have since abandoned it.

“And for the record, God is reasonable. Even if we don't understand the things he does, they are always based in truth and order, which both must be reasonable. While they may contradict all the stupid preconceived notions we've packed into our heads, they will never actually contradict our consciences.”

God’s truth and order will never contradict your conscience?

That is the most incredible statement and has left me speechless. It is also one that is deeply disturbing to me. If you believe that God’s truth will never contradict you that would make you perfect and sinless.

I am going to leave you with a quote by Gary T. Meadors

“Conscience is an aspect of self-awareness that produces the pain and/or pleasure we "feel" as we reflect on the norms and values we recognize and apply….. It is an inward capacity humans possess to criti

Janie

8/4/2015 12:59:06 pm

I am going to leave you with a quote by Gary T. Meadors

“Conscience is an aspect of self-awareness that produces the pain and/or pleasure we "feel" as we reflect on the norms and values we recognize and apply….. It is an inward capacity humans possess to critique themselves because the Creator provided this process as a means of moral restraint for his creation. The critique conscience exercises related to the value system which a person develops. Romans 12:1-2 makes the point that God desires that his creation conform to divine values by a process of rational renewal. The Scriptures provide the content for this renewal.”
Please take the time and read the following for the full article: http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/conscience/

Racheal

8/4/2015 02:03:45 pm

Seeing as it appears that this conversation can really go no further, and to save everybody any further rankled feelings, I am closing the comments on this post.

Thank-you all for your willingness to engage on this very complex and diverse subject...

~~Racheal

Comments are closed.

Of Confederate Battle Flags and Slavery

Racheal

The Middle Kid

Archives

Categories