Christianity and the Institution of Slavery in the Antebellum South

Christianity and the Institution of Slavery in the Antebellum South

            It would be unfair to categorize the clergy in the South as being pro slavery; that most certainly was not the case. However, the South did need moral assurance that their “peculiar institution” was within the laws of God and nature. There were clergy, who through their own personal convictions, provided that moral certainty. I can not help but think those same men who defended slavery would have been opposed to the institution if they had been raised in the North. James Shannon, in his speech before the Pro-slavery Convention of the State of Missouri in 1855, said that slavery is in our midst. It had been forced on the South by the combined efforts of old England and New England, the very same concerns that then condemned the institution. The greed generated by cotton gives weight to this argument. He went on to say that future generations are not responsible for its existence; they did not introduce it nor create the society that embraced it. He spoke about the economic and social dependency on slavery and the catastrophic results if it was to be forcibly ended. Was he more concerned for the health and welfare of his community than his own biblical beliefs?

            James Henley Thornwell, a South Carolinian Presbyterian, firmly believed that as a moral question on the biblical sanction of slavery, “The Bible has settled it.” He preached that the slaves and the white man were brothers that would both enjoy freedom in Heaven, but this was not Heaven, and men were created to occupy their station. He believed that regardless of how the church viewed the institution of slavery, it was not within the purview of the church to challenge the existence of a civil institution. He wrote that the church had limited responsibility to the moral relationship between master and slave. He viewed slavery as a social arrangement between two very distinct classes, a civil relationship with rights and obligations, and a political entity with a direct bearing on community growth, prosperity, and happiness. Thornwell saw slavery as a political question where communities could honestly differ. He belief in the restricted role of the church stretched beyond slavery. He believed the church had no role in constructing a new society. This belief extended to classes distinctions, political constitutions, organizations for the improvement of the penal code, and actions taken to arrest the progress of intemperance, gambling, and lust. The church had a creed but no opinion; leave these questions to the providence of God. Does the church have a responsibility to intervene in society?

            Perhaps no argument over the validity of slavery through scripture was more well known in the antebellum period than the correspondence between Doctor Richard Fuller of Beauford, South Carolina and Doctor Francis Wayland of Providence, Rhode Island. It is important to remember that how these men personally felt about slavery and its continued existence was not conveyed in the argument. Doctor Fuller took the position of pro-slavery. “I find my bible condemning the abuses of slavery but permitting the system itself.” Doctor Fuller’s argument presented the usual passages from the bible: Genesis 14:18-20, Genesis 17:13, Exodus 12:43-45, Exodus 20:17, Exodus 21:20-21, and Leviticus 25:44-46, as proof that slavery was justified through scripture. Doctor Wayland took the anti-slavery position by arguing that there is no evidence Jesus Christ, or his apostles ever came in contact with slavery under the Jewish law. Quoting the same scripture as Doctor Fuller, Leviticus 24, Doctor Wayland argued that, in Palestine, slavery had come to an end hundreds of years before the time of Christ. The slavery during the time of Christ was slavery under Roman law. He wrote that the silence on slavery in the New Testament is not sanctifying it through omission, but rather it was something that did not have a place where Christ traveled. I make no claim to appreciating the nuances of interpreting the scriptures by men much more capable than myself, and it is nearly impossible not to succumb to presentism on the issue of slavery. Through as objective a lens as possible, who was right?

 Bibliography:

Bishop, Charles C. “The Pro-Slavery Argument Reconsidered: James Henley Thornwell, Millennial Abolitionist.” The South Carolina Historical Magazine 73, no. 1 (1972): 18–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27567097.

Hague, William, Francis Wayland, and Richard Fuller. Christianity and Slavery: A Review of the Correspondence between Richard Fuller, D.D., of Beaufort, South Carolina, and Francis Wayland, D.D., of Providence, Rhode Island: On Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution. Boston: Gould, Kendall & Lincoln, 1847. Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926 (accessed January 30, 2025). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CY0108029792/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=bookmark-SABN&xid=4654308e&pg=27.

Hesseltine, W. B. “Some New Aspects of the Pro-Slavery Argument.” The Journal of Negro History 21, no. 1 (1936): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/2714540.

Shannon, James, and Pro-slavery Convention of the State of Missouri. An address delivered before the Pro-slavery Convention of the State of Missouri, held in Lexington, July 13, 1855, on domestic slavery : as examined in the light of Scripture, of natural rights, of civil government, and the constitutional power of Congress. St. Louis, Mo: Printed at the Republican Book and Job Office, 1855. Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926 (accessed January 31, 2025). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CY0102490864/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=bookmark-SABN&xid=55f248f6&pg=7.