How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

During the period of American slavery, how did slaveholders manage
to balance
their religious beliefs with the cruel facts of the “peculiar institution“?
As shown by the following passages — adapted from Noel Rae’s new
book The Great Stain, which uses firsthand accounts to tell the story
of slavery in America — for some of them that rationalization was
rght there in the Bible.
Out of the more than three quarters of a million words in the Bible,
Christian slaveholders—and, if asked, most slaveholders would have
defined themselves as Christian—had two favorites texts, one from
the beginning of the Old Testament and the other from the end of
the New Testament. In the words of the King James Bible, which
was the version then current, these were, first, Genesis IX, 18–27:
And the sons of Noah that went forth from the ark were Shem,
Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These
are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole world
overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he
planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken;
and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of
Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two
brethren without.
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both
their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness
of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not
their father’s nakedness.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son
had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of
servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the
Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge
Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall
be his servant. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and
fifty yearss.”
Despite some problems with this story—What was so terrible
about seeing Noah drunk? Why curse Canaan rather than Ham?
How long was the servitude to last? Surely Ham would have
been the same color as his brothers?—it eventually became
the foundational text for those who wanted to justify slavery
on Biblical grounds. In its boiled-down, popular version,
known as “The Curse of Ham,” Canaan was dropped from
the story, Ham was made black, and his descendants
were made Africans.
The other favorite came from the Apostle Paul’s Epistle
to the Ephesians, VI, 5-7: “Servants, be obedient to them
that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear
and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto
Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but
as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from
the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord,
and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing
any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord,
whether he be bond or free.” (Paul repeated himself,
almost word for word, in the third chapter of his
Epistle to the Colossians.)
The rest of the Old Testament was often mined by pro-slavery
polemicists for examples proving that slavery was common
among the Israelites. The New Testament was largely ignored,
except in the negative sense of pointing out that nowhere
did Jesus condemn slavery, although the story of Philemon,
the runaway who St. Paul returned to his master, was often
quoted. It was also generally accepted that the Latin word
servus, usually translated as servant, really meant slave.

Even apparent abuses, when looked at in the right light,
worked out for the best, in the words of Bishop William
Meade of Virginia. Suppose, for example, that you have
been punished for something you did not do, “is it not
possible you may have done some other bad thing
which was never discovered and that Almighty God,
who saw you doing it, would not let you escape without
punishment one time or another? And ought you not in
such a case to give glory to Him, and be thankful that
He would rather punish you in this life for your
wickedness than destroy your souls for it in the next life?
But suppose that even this was not the case—a case hardly
to be imagined—and that you have by no means, known
or unknown, deserved the correction you suffered;
there is this great comfort in it, that if you bear it patiently,
and leave your cause in the hands of God, He will reward
you for it in heaven, and the punishment you suffer unjustly
here shall turn to your exceeding great glory hereafter.”

Bishop Stephen Elliott, of Georgia, also knew how to look
on the bright side. Critics of slavery should “consider whether,
by their interference with this institution, they may not be
checking and impeding a work which is manifestly Providential.
For nearly a hundred years the English and American Churches
have been striving to civilize and Christianize Western Africa,
and with what result? Around Sierra Leone, and in the
neighborhood of Cape Palmas, a few natives have
been made Christians, and some nations have been
partially civilized; but what a small number in comparison
with the thousands, nay,
I may say millions, who have
learned the way to Heaven and who have been made
to know their Savior through the means of African slavery!
At this very moment there are from three to four millions
of Africans, educating for earth and for Heaven in the so
vilified Southern States—learning the very best lessons
for a semi-barbarous people—lessons of self-control,
of obedience, of perseverance, of adaptation of means
to ends; learning, above all, where their weakness lies,
and how they may acquire strength for the battle of life.
These considerations satisfy me with their condition,
and assure me that it is the best relation they can,
for the present, be made to occupy.”

Reviewing the work of the white churches, Frederick
Douglass had this to say: “Between the Christianity
of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize
the widest possible difference—so wide that to receive
the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject
the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend
of the one is of necessity to be the enemy of the other.
I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity
of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding,
women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and
hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed,
I can see no rason but the most deceitful one
for calling the religion of this land Christianity…”
Adapted from The Great Stain: Witnessing American Slavery by Noel Rae.
The Overlook Press, Peter Mayer Publishers, Inc.
BY NOEL RAE : FEBRUARY 23, 2018 3:30 PM EST

Contents

Login

Who's On Line

MailChimp Signup

Social Links

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

Articles-Latest

Articles-Most Read

Right Click