I am currently reading Volume II of Alexander Stephens “A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States,” in preparation for a class I will be teaching in the Autumn on the War of Northern Aggression.

I have often believed that the Church will not be able to make a stand against sodomy, transgenderism, and women in office until it returns to thinking correctly about slavery again. William Webb’s book “Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis” demonstrates the truth of this observation as Webb goes out of his way to suggest that the hermeneutical arc of Scripture allows us to see how God’s Word anticipated a day when God’s people would be mature enough to understand that God’s Word was in error on these subjects when originally written.

None of what is written in this post should be taken as a desire to return to race based slavery. None of what is written in this post should be taken to say that slavery in America was never without sin and abuse. Just as the Biblical Institution of Marriage is never without sin and abuse. However, all because an Institution is abused by some does not mean it is not a Biblical Institution sanctioned by God in the Scripture. None of what is written in this post condones man-stealing which African tribes were guilty of in initially selling off the prizes of war to predominantly Yankee and Jewish traders.

All this post seeks to reveal is that the argument for slavery as in submission to Scripture is a weighty argument as seen by considering the words of Alexander Stephens and James Hammond.

Begin Quote:

“One digression I am here compelled to make in following Judge Bynum. He speaks of Slavery as it existed with us, as a “sin in the sight of men and in the sight of God” — as the “summation of all iniquity!” I stated in the outset that the right or wrong of this Institution did not legitimately come within the purview of our present discussion. That related exclusively to the rightful powers of the Federal Government over it, to interfere with it in any way, except as is expressly pro vided in the Compact. But these remarks of his demand notice. They require a reply. In replying briefly as possible, but pointedly, I have to say I know of but one sure standard in determining what is, and what is not sin or sinful. That standard is the written law of God as prescribed in the Old and the New Testament. By that standard the relation of master and slave, even in a much more abject condition than existed with us, is not founded in sin. Abram, afterwards called Abraham, the father of the faithful, with whom the Divine Covenant was made for man’s salvation and the redemption of the world from the dominion of sin, was a slave-holder. He was enjoined to impart the seal of this everlasting covenant not only to those who were born in his house ; but to those who were “bought with his money.” It was into his bosom, in Heaven, that the poor man, who died at the rich man’s gate, was borne by angels, according to the Parable of the Saviour. Job certainly was one of the best men we read of in the Bible. He was a large slave-holder. So, too, were Isaac and Jacob and all the Patriarchs. The great moral law which defines sin, the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai, written on stone by the finger of God himself, expressly recognizes Slavery, and enjoins certain duties of masters towards their slaves. The chosen people of God, by the Levitical Law, proclaimed under divine sanction, were authorized to hold slaves — not of their own race — (of these they were to hold bondmen for a term of years) — but of the Heathen around them — of these they were authorized to buy slaves ” bondmen and bondwomen/’ for life, who were to be to them ” an inheritance” and ” possession forever.”

Slavery existed when the gospel was preached by Christ and his Apostles, and where they preached it was all around them. And though the Scribes and Pharisees were denounced by Christ for their hypocrisy and robbing widows’ houses and divers other sins, yet not a word did he utter, as far as we are informed, against slave- holding. On the contrary, he said he had not found so great faith in all Israel, as in the slave-holding Centurion! Was he truckling to a Slavery Oligarchy when he made this declaration ? In no place in the New Testament is the relation of master and slave spoken of as sinful. Several of the Apostles alluded to it ; but none of them, not one of them, condemned it as sinful in itself, or as violative of the laws of God, or even of Christian duty. They enjoin the relative duties of both masters and slaves. Paul sent a fugitive slave, Onesimus, back to Philemon his master. He did not consider it any violence to his conscience to do this, even when he was under no stipulated obligation to do it.

He frequently alludes to Slavery in his letters to the Churches, but in no case speaks of it as sinful. What he says in one of these epistles, I must read to you. It is the first five verses of chapter vi. of the First Epistle to Timothy:

1. “Let as many servants” (δοῦλοι, in the original, which according to Robinson’s Greek and English Lexi con, which you can see, means slaves, or those bound to serve, and were the property of their masters,) ” as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and His doctrine be not blasphemed.

2. ” And they that have believing masters,” (according to the judge’s idea, there could be no such thing as a Slave-holding believer, but so did not think Paul,) ” let them not despise” (καταφρονείτωσαν, that is, as it might better be rendered, think slightly of, or neglect) ” them, because they are brethren ; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

3. “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

4. ” He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

5. ” Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain, is godliness : from such withdraw thyself.”
Can we suppose that Paul would have so written, if he had considered that there was anything morally wrong in the relation of master and slave, much less if he had looked upon it as the ” summation of all iniquity ;” and if our Ministers of the Gospel did continue to teach the same doctrine, to enjoin the same duties upon master and slave, can it be justly said that they thereby ” dese crated the Temples of the Living God ?” If they with drew themselves from those who taught otherwise, and whose doctrines brought “envy, strife, railings,” and finally war, did they not follow the advice of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, and likewise the words, as he affirms, of our Lord Jesus Christ, “that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed ?”

It is not, as I have said, within the purview of this discussion, to speak of the right or wrong of Slavery morally, or the evils of the Institution politically, arising from an abuse of power under it, any more than it is to speak of the institution of marriage, or the relation of parent and child, as it is regulated in any State. These are matters which under the Federal system belong exclusively to the several States. What I have here said in reply to Judge Bynum, is therefore a digression. From this I will now return, with but one single additional remark upon what he has said on this point ; and that is this : To maintain that Slavery is in itself sinful, in the face of all that is said and written in the Bible upon the subject, with so many sanctions of the relation by the Deity himself, does seem to me to be little short of blasphemous! It is a direct imputation upon the wisdom and justice, as well as the declared ordinances of God, as they arc written in the inspired oracles, to say nothing of their manifestation in the universe around us.*

Here Stephens footnotes Gov. James Hammond;

* James H. Hammond, of South Carolina, one of the most intellectual men this country ever produced, when Governor of his State, in 1844, in reply to a communication he received from the Free Church of Glasgow, {Scotland, upon the subject of Slavery, amongst other things, said:

‘Your memorial, like all that have been sent to me, denounces Slavery in the severest terms ; as ‘ traversing every law of nature, and violating the most sacred domestic relations, and the primary rights of man.’ You and your Presbytery are Christians. You profess to believe, and no doubt do believe, that the laws laid down in the Old and New Testaments for the government of man, in his moral, social and political relations, were all the direct revelation of God himself. Does it never occur to you, that in anathematizing Slavery, you deny this divine sanction of those laws, and repudiate both Christ and Moses ; or charge God with downright crime, in regulating and perpetuating Slavery in the Old Testament, and the most criminal neglect, in not only not abolishing, but not even reprehending it, in the New ? If these Testaments came from God, it is impossible that Slavery can ‘ traverse the laws of nature, or violate the primary rights of man.’ What those laws and rights really are, mankind have not agreed. But they are clear to God ; and it is blasphemous for any of His creatures to set up their notions of them in opposition to His immediate and acknowledged Revelation. Nor does our system of Slavery outrage the most sacred domestic relations, Husbands and wives, parents and children, among our Slaves, are seldom separated, except from necessity or crime. The same reasons in duce much more frequent separations among the white population in this, and, I imagine, in almost every other country.”

See “Speeches and Letters” of Hon. J. H. Hammond