The history of Uncle Tom's Cabin

A long and informative review of a new edition of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin: The Best Bad Book of the Age, from the Times Literary Supplement. Among the insights (the reviewer refers to James Baldwin and to Henry Louis Gates, editor of the new annotated version being reviewed):

Like much of elite American academia, neither Baldwin nor Gates copes well with the religious basis of Stowe’s indictment of slavery. Baldwin opted for reduction, seeing Stowe’s religious motivation as merely “a panic of being hurled into the flames, of being caught in traffic with the devil” and a “kind of theological terror”. Gates largely ignores it.

The daughter, sister and wife of Congregationalist ministers, Stowe held a far subtler religious vision, based as much on love as on fear. Besides invoking a fear of posthumous punishment, the religious scope of the novel includes the morality of Miss Ophelia, the brotherly and sisterly love displayed by the Quaker families, the “love and kindness” of Little Eva, and the heroic forbearance of Uncle Tom among others.

Stowe’s religious stance comes closer to that of the many black church ministers like Martin Luther King, and rehabilitating or at least understanding the complexity of the vision would help our valorization of the many non-violent Civil Rights leaders who arose out of the black churches in the first place. Uncle Tom is not an Uncle Tom partly because he is a Christ-figure.

Comments

[James A. Altena]

When I taught 19th c. US history to college undergraduates, I regularly assigend Stowe's novel as a supplementary text for the course essay paper. Generally (with a little nudge from the instructor) they were far more appreciative of the religious aspects of the book than Baldwin, Gates, et al. Of course, I also had the class ignoramus who (regarding Uncle Tom) whined about "weak people who use religion as a crutch", etc. The world will never recognize the strength of Christ in the seemingly weak things of this life.

[Joe Long]

The great war in the 1860's became inevitable, I contend, when a critical mass of Northerners looked South and saw only the caricature figure of Simon Legree - and a critical mass of our folks looked North, and could see only John Brown. (John Brown, at least, was not a fictional character.) Stowe helped to unleash the war and inspire punitive Reconstruction with her well-intentioned diatribe; I hope Lincoln DID curl his lip a bit as he said "the little woman who wrote the little book..."

It is certainly true that many current history students have no conception of the religous motivation of the abolitionists - indeed, they are more likely to be assigned readings about the theological defenses of slavery; rarely is it pointed out that those defenses existed because the religious attacks on the institution were the only serious ones!

[Janet C.]

Whenever people tell me that The DaVinci Code is only a novel, I answer that Uncle Tom's Cabin was a novel.

AMDG,
Janet

[James A. Altena]

Dear Joe,

Please correct my memory if faulty (and my copy of Stowe's book in storage), but wasn't the slave trader Simon Legree a Northerner?

[Doc]

The Civil War does inspire some strong sentiments. Altho' 'officially' the North fought to 'preserve the Union', one suspects that absent slavery they would have cheerfully let the South secede. One wonders what would have happened if the North had said, "You can go, but you are holding x number of US citizens in durance vile [i.e., the slaves]. You may not take them with you. We will take various actions short of open invasion should you choose to continue to keep them captive." Then instituted various blockades, guerilla insurrections, arming slaves, Underground Railroad to the max, etc., combined with strong theological arguments designed to shame those whose consciences were not yet seared into abolishing the institution.

While the CW freed the slaves, it left us with a grossly unhealthy legacy of empowerment of the Federal gov't at the expense of the states and the people.

[Judy Warner]

Simon Legree was the cruel overseer on the plantation Uncle Tom got sent to.

[Bisaal]

I should like to read about theological defenses of slavery.

[James A. Altena]

"Altho' 'officially' the North fought to 'preserve the Union', one suspects that absent slavery they would have cheerfully let the South secede."

This is simply absurd. Actually, such sentiment as existed in the North to let the South secede peacefully came primarily from abolitionists who wanted a "purer" union free from the taint of slavery.

[Joe Long]

James, Legree WAS a Northern character - a nice touch, really. It remains, however, that he personified slavery-as-sadism and became the stereotype of all slaveholders.

Please understand I am not defending the "Peculiar Institution". It's ironic, though, that a fictionalized picture of it from a woman who'd never visited the South when she wrote it.

Doc, there's no way the North would have let us - um, I'm sorry, let the South - "just go", slavery or no. Your plan sounds like Longstreet's smart remark, though:"We should have freed the slaves, THEN fired on Fort Sumter!"

[Ethan Cordray]

Bisaal, I'm not sure if such things are easy to get in India, but I believe some of the best authors to read on the subject are Eugene Genovese and Elizabeth Fox Genovese (husband and wife). Someone else might be able to suggest particular books.

Joe, James, et al., I recently read a book review (in the American Scholar) of Armstead L. Robinson's Bitter Fruits of Bondage, which claims that slavery significantly harmed the South's ability to wage war, as they had to hold a lot of troops back to maintain security. It also encouraged the individual Southern states to each guard its own interests rather than pulling together better.

The sympathy I have for the Southern states' political philosophy makes me see the war as tragic, not because they were fighting for a lost cause but because they squandered their noble ideals fighting for a monstrous cause.

It occurs to me that I know little about the sources of anti-secessionism in the North. Does ayone know of studies on this subject? I do know that in Missouri a lot of the pro-Union sentiment came from recent immigrants who seem to have been more likely to view America as being all of one piece. They were usually anti-slavery as well, which also turned them against the Confederacy.

Also, they were often Roman Catholic, which brings to mind a more religious question: when did the Catholic Church turn against slavery, officially or in general opinion, and what thological arguments did they employ? We often talk about the debate within Protestant America, but I've not heard about the Catholic and European process.

[Joe Long]

Failed to complete a sentence, there. "It's ironic that a fictionalized portrait of it...etc." should have been so much more influential than the numerous firsthand accounts available, both at the time and afterwards. Those accounts include occasional horror stories, indeed, but they include much else.

Odd to our sensibilities - and those of Northerners whose picture of slavery came from "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (or comes, today, from "Roots") - is the historical fact that the expected widespread, Haiti-esque slave rebellions did NOT occur. A few Southern towns even built postwar "Lost Cause" monuments "to the faithful slaves" who protected and supported families while the white men went to war.

[Joe Long]

Ethan, the Confederacy punched WELL above its weight militarily - a historical fact; indeed the manpower question related to slavery is not "how many troops were kept at home to keep the helots in line", but rather "why was the Confederacy so slow to arm, train and send its black men into battle". The answer, of course, is that you cannot have a man fight for his country then return him to slavery - as General Lee insisted, in his support for that plan. He wanted freedom guaranteed for any black soldier who'd put on the gray. (It was passed by the Confederate Congress in March of '65, too late to affect anything except theoretical discussions centuries later.)

The Northern army was not strongly abolitionist, neither in its leadership nor in the rank-and-file - although certainly abolitionist in its ultimate effects. As rich slaveowner and Confederate soldier Wade Hampton said years after the war, "at least it relieved us of the curse of slavery"; yet that motivated relatively few Northern soldiers. Lincoln delayed the Emancipation Proclamation so long partly out of deference to Army sensibilities...

All of my compatriots who rhapsodize about how the South could have won, are being silly; the more interesting historical question to me is, "How did the South do so well, militarily, after going to war with a power so superior in every material factor?"

[Neil Gussman]

I read to my daughters three nights a week. They are 16 and 18 now. When they were 10 and 12 and there one-year-old adopted little brother (who is African-American) was asleep in the next room, I read them Uncle Tom's Cabin. We live in Lancaster PA so they had some trouble believing anything quite so horrible could have happened in America. Since all of us except Nigel are ethnically Jewish, I read Night by Elie Wiesel to the girls two years later. Even though they would be the victims of a resurgent Nazi government, Night was harder for them to fathom than UTC.

Beyond the obvious message of UTC, the book gave me an opportunity to talk about the responsibility of freedom and the dangers of rebellion.

In February, we all watched the recent NOVA special on Percy Julian, the 20th century African-American chemist, and all the indignities and attacks he suffered despite all he did for his country. Julian was the grandson of slaves and grew up in Montgomery, Alabama. The program showed how long it took for liberation to turn into actual freedom,

[Neil Gussman]

Joe,
If you have a chance to watch the NOVA program on Percy Julian, you will note that the grandmother and grnadfather who took Percy to the train to go north and attend college were ex slaves. The grandfather had the first two fingers cut off his right hand for secretly learning to read and write. The grandmother was whipped for expressing joy at the approach of the Union soldiers and only at Julian's college graduation showed her grandson the scars of slavery. How many southern white children would have to be taken from their parents and sold to make slavery an abomination?

[Joe Long]

Neil - you missed the part, apparently, where I'm not pro-slavery. I suggested, rather, that first-hand accounts both of slavery's horrors and of daily life make better history, than a novel written for propaganda purposes does. You chose a survivor's account for the Holocaust - a superior choice, I think.

I could recite a litany of Federal horrors from the War and Reconstruction; rest assured "Nova" isn't racing to produce a program on them. Nor do I hold them as grievances to be avenged generations later; they are history, to be learned from. The novels written about them would be a poor choice, I think, for extracting the right lessons...that's where we got "Birth of a Nation".

[James A. Altena]

Dear Ethan,

There are studies of anti-secessionism, but I don't have any titles at hand. Part of it has to do with both the Northwest Ordinance and the Louisiana Purchase giving Congress the power to allot land to settlers as well as determine territorial boundaries and terms of admission of territories to the Union as states, all of which tended toward a federalist (i.e. nationalist) rather than statist sense of primary identity. Ditto the fact that European immigrants both entered through and settled primarily in the North, and mostly brought with them a sense of allegiance to a centralized national government.

I likewise presume there must be studies of Protestant vs. RC views of slavery in the US, though they are more likely buried in the scholarly periodical literature. I suspect that material on offical Vatican attitudes toward slavery would be easier to find -- e.g. the encyclical resulitng from the work of Bartholomew de las Casas in the 16th c. Spanish colonies on behalf of Americna Indians.

(A hasty Google search results shows a mixed record. There are Vatican condmenations of slavery going back to the 16th c. A Vatican document of 1866 states: "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law..." while a 1917 revision to canon law declared that "selling a human being into slavery or for any other evil purpose" is a crime. Apparently distinctions were made between engaging in slave-traiding as illicit but slave ownership as licit, and also between slavery by kidnapping or conquest as illicit but slavery resulting from criminal sentence or capture of combatants in war as licit. Some people argue that an official shift in views is bound up with the labors of Pope Leo XIII on behalf of the dignity of human labor. In the USA, condemnation or justification of slavery by RC bishops, like that of Episcopal Church bishops and Protestant clergymen, pretty much went along with the sentiments of the local population.)

I am a bit sceptical of Robinson's thesis. It has some truth to it, but seems overstated.

The Confederacy did punch indeed far above its weight militarily, but there are several well-known reasons for that -- e.g. the stronger Southern tradition of military service, initially higher morale, etc. -- but most importantly the fact that Southerners were defenders fighting on their home territory. Offense virtually always needs consierably more weight than defense.

One reason the South lasted as long as it did is that transportation networks were not sufficiently developed for moving troops and munitions. If the Civil War had occurred, say, 30 years later, and if the disparity in economic and technological development between North and South had remained proportionate to 1860, I suspect it would have been a much shorter conflict -- especially with the intervening development of automatic riles, early machine guns, etc.

While I decry the current federal abuse of power and concommitant neglect of the 10th Amendment, I can't say that I find the Southern states' rights philosophy admirable. (I think that e.g. Calhoun's "concurrent majorities" scheme was a disastrous recipe for eventual national dissolution.) That topic is now as over-romaticized as fantasies abut the Confederacy winning the Civil War.

In defense of Stowe, she in fact based numerous scenes of her novel on several actual incidents and eyewitness accounts. As fiction her book is rather hokey by modern sensibilites, but only Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" has approached it for its impact on the general public. ("I aimed for the public's heart, and instead I hit it in the gut.")

To his credit, Joe certainly did disclaim any defense of slavery early on. But while Reconstruction certainly had its abuses and horror stories, I'm extremely sceptical that any of them seriously compare either in scale, intensity, or duration to those of "the Peculiar Institution."

But, as Lincoln properly noted, the North shared in the guilt of slavery as well, and the Civil War was God's chastisement of the entire nation for unrighteousness. One trembles to think what may be in store for us someday for almost 35 years of virtually unrestricted abortion.

[Joe Long]

James, I think it safer to assert that both war and slavery have been general historical results of the Total Depravity of Man (tm) than that the 1860's war was specifically a punishment for African chattel slavery in the United States. For one thing, the war's suffering fell disproportionately upon new immigrants, abolitionists, and the non-slave-owning classes North and South - and indeed upon the slaves. Lincoln's second inaugural has always seemed awfully presumptuous to me in that regard. Indeed, things the Scripture much more clearly labels as sins - Pride first among them, and not restricted by region - explain the war a deal more coherently.

On abortion - well, I could have nightmares about explaining abortion in our society to Lee or Jackson - or Sherman, for that matter. I had ten times rather defend slavery, if I had to pick one of the two, and certainly abortion seems much more place-, time- and culture-specific than slavery was...I fear both divine wrath and natural consequences for that (if one can clearly distinguish between the two).

[Neil Gussman]

Joe,
I spent ten years in the Army in missiles and tanks. I would have no trouble explaining to those venerable generals how we moderns prefer to kill people without faces. The Blitz in London followed by the bombing of Germay and Japan killed and maimed millions but those dropping the bombs and launching the missiles nevers saw, smelled, touched, or heard the screams of their victims. In world where faceless slaughter becomes the darling of the military--who had more postwar prestige than Strategic Air Command or the Nuclear Navy?--abortion, killing those without faces, fits the dominant culture.

Now with slavery, by contrast, you humiliate a person with a face for his or her entire life. Because these generals killed men they could see with ball and bayonet, they could look their victims in the face. That's part of the reason our culture can be anti-slavery and pro-abortion--we like our victims without faces. Which is worse for the soul is for The Lord to sort out. Faceless killing is killing nonetheless. But telling yourself that man or woman you own deserves that fate day after day, year in and year makes a soul that is deaf to the cry of at least the poor standing right in front of you.

I would think these generals would find those who oppose abortion and favor strategic bombing, especially of civilians, rather strange. And Heaven knows they would be repelled by the modern proliferation of those who are vocally pro-military but dodged the draft or avoided military service in the absence of a draft.

[Joe Long]

Neil - it is very true that impersonal killing is easier; it already was in the 1860's, when the crew-served artillery did the most damage on the battlefield. (I was 11-C, 120 mm mortars but never got near a battlefield. I would never have seen my mortar's targets, if my unit were employed properly.) I commend to you Col. Dave Grossman's book "On Killing: The Psychological Cost etc etc", an academic study of behavior in battle and atrocity situations - makes your points well, I think.

Does ANYONE support WWII-style, civilian-casualty-maximizing strategic bombing today? Well, anyone Western, anyway? Me, I'm all for the "close air support" and the cruise-missile-through-the-dictator's-office-window, myself. I hope we've seen the end of city-busting (by the West - I can't pretend to hope the enemies of the West would refain).

The primary sources simply do not support the impression that slavery was universally seen as continual humiliation by perpetrators or victims; indeed St. Paul's instructions to masters and slaves are incompatible with that view, as is his advice to Philemon. We have grown past slavery in the progress of history, thank God, but blanket judgement of slaveowners (and implicitly also of those slaves who so often exhibited tremendous loyalty and a sincere sense of duty) smacks of "chronological arrogance" to me. Too, the Scripture refers to us as God's slaves on occasion - hardly an apt metaphor if slavery is interpreted as an utterly unmitigated evil.

So go a bit easier on George Washington and Ben Franklin, I'd suggest - not to mention a significant fraction of the Christians who lived between the time of Christ and the mid-nineteenth century.

[James A. Altena]

"James, I think it safer to assert that both war and slavery have been general historical results of the Total Depravity of Man (tm) than that the 1860's war was specifically a punishment for African chattel slavery in the United States."

This is both Lincoln's view and mine, Joe. You're making a disntction without a difference.

[Neil Gussman]

Joe,
I am going to guess you were an 11C more than a few years ago.
I was on active duty from 72-80 and reserve from 81-84. During that time, I thought eating ham and eggs from a green can was just part of life and better than being hungry. The history of armies from Ancient Israel to Iraq today shows that people with no other choice can endure incredible hardship. The fact that people acted honorably under American slavery gives no credit either to the institution or the slave owners. And one odd thing that has come about recently with DNA testing associated with geneology is that the ancestors of former American slaves got Y chromosomes from white men. Just the fact that slavery gave ordinary men the chance to buy and own young women should be a big reason that the institution was far worse than peculiar. Good men living in the culture of American slavery certainly knew well of that part of slavery. And again, if people acted honorably, I do not think I am imposing an out-of-order interpretation or am chronologically arrogant to say that I can identify with (in the sense of understanding, not having suffered with them) the slaves who were fathers. I have three pretty teenage daughters. Two of them go off to college next year. What if they could be sold at my master's whim? Or worse still, what if my master started sleeping with one of them--or all of them? The abuses inherent in the system are just horrible. And so much the worse because our country proclaimed freedom and justice and equality yet the Old World was liberating serfs and slaves faster than us.
Anyway, I was saying that given that I would have no problem explaining to generals of the 1860s the horrors of our own age. I believe that each age has its own pet sins and it would not be difficult to explain ours to them.

[Yaknyeti]

Joe - Stuart posted a discussion (/dissertation) on carpet-bombing a while back, saying something about it being somewhat justified in response to the distribution of industry strategy that both the Germans and the Japanese were implementing at the time. Ask him - or check back here - in a week or so.

[Bisaal]

>>In the USA, condemnation or justification of slavery by RC bishops, like that of Episcopal Church bishops and Protestant clergymen, pretty much went along with the sentiments of the local population.>>

So Christianity has no moral position on slavery at all?
It can not be deduced from either OT or NT or Gospels?.

[Joe Long]

I think that slavery, like absolute monarchy, was contrary to the will of God, and in the fullness of time has been (and had to be) outgrown by civilizations influenced by Christianity. Bisaal, Paul's letter to Philemon in the New Testament is instructive, as are all of the passages where he advises slaves to be respectful and obedient - and slaveowners to be considerate of their slaves to a degree that...really makes it pretty hard to be a slaveowner. Over the generations Christians developed the firm antislavery position of all Christian churches today, and certainly Paul's writing was subversive to the institution from the very beginning.

Slavery facilitated rape, torture, humiliation - certainly it was in its very nature economic exploitation, as absolute monarchy is (per Samuel's warning in the Old Testament) tyranny whether it's benevolent or not. Yet an individual slave owner in past times, like a particular absolute monarch, might be a virtuous man trying to live out the obligations of his own station in life - and not necessarily questioning or trying to alter the station of slaves, who had always been part of human society. If it was possible to be a "good king" then it was possible to be a "good master". (Was either possible? Not quite, for "there is none righteous, no, not one," but to be quite blunt, many of the historical Christian figures I most admire owned slaves, and before the mid-nineteenth century I don't see evidence that many questioned it, either.)

None of this is official by any church's doctrine, just my conclusion after spending considerable research time amongst the records of our forebears.

[Scott Pennington]

One problem that Christians face when approaching the question of slavery is that there is nothing in traditional Christianity that opposes it. Slavery and other lesser forms of servitude were the norm in Christian civilization and the pre-Christian Hebrew civilization.

Make no mistake, I oppose the practice of slavery wherever it remains. However, I'm willing to be honest enough to admit that there is no Christian case against it other than some relatively new conviction among Christians, independent of tradition, that slavery is too oppressive and ungracious to practice.

The Jews of the Old Testament practiced a form of slavery upon those of other nations which is much like the slavery practiced in the Old South. There is not a word in the Bible explicitly advocating the abolition of slavery.

It is better to be honest and say that civilized humanity has outgrown the institution rather than attribute religious justification to it. Alas, honesty is not the strongest human trait.

[Scott Pennington]

Also, many people overlook the economic basis for the Civil War. Slavery was not originally an issue for the North. Lincoln insisted he was only committed to preserving the Union, not ending slavery. In the South it was more complicated because King Cotton was such an integral part of the economy.

Imagine the consequences of immediate abolition in the pre-war South. Four million people who have no experience with managing their own affairs at all suddenly responsible for supporting themselves. Also, the violence issue is overlooked. There were slave rebellions before the war and there is no reason to believe that a significant number of the newly freed would not engage in retributive violence. Whether by war or by the choice of the southern states to enact immediate abolition, a depression and bloodbath were going to result.

The South saw the abolition of slavery not only as an attack upon their social system but as an attack on their economy. The North wanted cheap cotton and didn't want free trade of the South's principal product. There was a history there already.

The overwhelming sympathy of modern Americans for the liberation and civil rights of African Americans, in the current political culture, blinds many people to the actual moral history of Christianity (traditional tolerance of slavery) and the actual motivations of the two sides in the Civil War.

[Scott Pennington]

I should clarify, when I wrote that slavery was not originally an issue for the North, I meant that once the war was afoot and the South had seceeded, Lincoln professed to be intent only on restoring the Union, not abolishing slavery. The South was justified in its fear of abolitionist movements and intervention as a threat to its social system and economy.

[Judy Warner]

I don't think it was a coincidence that the people who caused the slave trade to end were Christians. As the current film Amazing Grace shows, William Wilberforce saw his work in Parliament as a religious mission to end the slave trade. Most of the people in that movement were Christians, as were most of the American abolitionists. They based their opposition to slavery on Christian principles.

Although the Bible doesn't specifically condemn slavery, its creation narrative and its universal moral principles have led to the idea of all people being the children of God, which is a necessary precursor to opposing slavery. No other people in human history considered that slavery was wrong except people inspired by the Bible.

[James A. Altena]

"The Jews of the Old Testament practiced a form of slavery upon those of other nations which is much like the slavery practiced in the Old South."

Not true. Slavery in the ancient world was primarily a social/economic status and did not have a specifically racial basis of justification.

"there is no Christian case against [slavery] other than some relatively new conviction among Christians, independent of tradition"

This is questionable. It is true that neither the Scriptures nor the patristic fathers call for abolition of slavery per se -- because the focus is the redemption of man from sin for the life to come rather than improvement of one's status in this world. With this there is a concern that the Gospel not be fraudulently manipulated and abused to a worldly goal of merely obtaining freedom from economic and social servitude in order to serve sin.

However, following St. Paul's own lead in the epsitle to Philemon, many Christian commentators from antiquity onward have clearly seen an implication in Scripture that fellowship and brotherhood in Christ inevitably entails not holding at least a fellow Christian in servlie bondage. And since masters would also have an obligation to bring non-believing slaves to faith, the further implication is that in due course they would also wish to bring them to emancipation as well. So, while "civilized humanity has outgrown the institution" of slavery, it has done so precisely because of the unfolding of the implicit trajectory of the Gospel itself, not due to some secular humanistic impulse apart from the Gospel. After all, modern Western civilization itself is a product of Christianity.

[James Kabala]

There's been a lot of good stuff said on both sides here, but one thing I have to say is that the "faithful slave" monuments of the South often have little basis in reality, and even when they do, such slaves were not representative of the overall slave population. More representative were the slaves who fled to Union lines (even before emancipation was a Union war aim; some, but not all, Union commanders sent them back if their masters could prove loyalty) and those who served in great numbers in the Union Army.

[James A. Altena]

"Also, many people overlook the economic basis for the Civil War."

Not true. There is an enormous scholarly literature on the subject, and Civil War historians I know tell me that students and museum visitors regularly attempt to demonstrate their (self-supposed) historical sophistication by saying that they "know that the Civil War was really fought over the tariff." And unfortunately Mr. Pennington presents a seriously distorted synopsis of both the economic issues involved and the consequences, which would be tedious to correct necessarily at length.

I find it ironic that, in order to glorify the antebellum South and demonize Lincoln as the American Hitler, certain paleo-conservatives have embraced economic explanations for the Civil War originally formulated by neo-Marxist historians such as James Beard.

"I should clarify, when I wrote that slavery was not originally an issue for the North, I meant that once the war was afoot and the South had seceded, Lincoln professed to be intent only on restoring the Union, not abolishing slavery."

Also inaccurate. Lincoln always professed preservation of the Union to be his primary goal. But while originally leaving slavery to the longer term, he nonetheless saw that ultimately its abolition would be required. And with the Emancipation Proclmation, he deliberately put abolition on the table as one of the war's main objectives -- i.e., he now saw that preservation of the Union required abolition sooner rather than later.

"The South was justified in its fear of abolitionist movements and intervention as a threat to its social system and economy,"

Aside from the claim being at best dubious, I find such a statement difficult to square with Mr. Pennington's claim to be opposed to slavery. If the South was justified in this fear, then it was justified in maintaining slavery -- unless a rather qubbling formalistic meaning of "justified" is adopted.

[Joe Long]

"Not true. Slavery in the ancient world was primarily a social/economic status and did not have a specifically racial basis of justification."

How about the Gibeonites, sentenced to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water" to Israel in perpetuity (Joshua 9:23)? Not to mention the Jews themselves, in their period of slavery in Egypt?

The racial justification is a bit of a red herring, in any case; at least in the United States (and the preceding British colonies) there were always legally-recognized free men of the predominantly-enslaved race - I doubt that was much comfort to the slaves, though. Nor would I imagine myself in bondage being a happier slave if I were reassured, "It's not just because you're white!"

Indeed the racial justifications may have been in a way a positive sign, since men at least finally felt that they had to justify the institution at ALL - a problem which seems not to have tortured the pagan conscience a bit.

The argument that ancient slavery was "different" is simply the difference between the galleys and the salt mines, and the sugar cane and cotton fields...and doubtless to the slave, his selection for those fates generally seemed quite arbitrary, whether or not it was based on his ancestry.

[Judy Warner]

Slaves throughout history have mainly been people captured in war or in raids. The Arabs have been the biggest slavers, and the word slave comes from Slav, as the Arabs took many Slavs into slavery. (Yikes, I just wore out the "slav" key.)

[Scott Pennington]

I don't see much substance in Mr. Altena's criticisms.

"Not true. Slavery in the ancient world was primarily a social/economic status and did not have a specifically racial basis of justification."

Yes, true. There were two different types of slavery in ancient Israel. One for Israelites and one for foreigners. Israelites were freed after seven years, foreigners could be enslaved for life.

It is also true that many people overlook the economic bases for the Civil War. I am pleased that Mr. Altena has met a number of those who have some idea of the trade issue, but this is not the case with most Americans.

Mr. Lincoln wrote an abolitionist leader in language now famous about being willing to preserve the union by any means necessary including maintaining slavery. It is true as the war progressed it became more and more identified with anti-slavery, but that was my point.

As to my remark about the South being justified in its fear of northern abolitionists as a threat to its social and economic system, Mr. Altena wrote,

"Aside from the claim being at best dubious, I find such a statement difficult to square with Mr. Pennington's claim to be opposed to slavery. If the South was justified in this fear, then it was justified in maintaining slavery -- unless a rather qubbling formalistic meaning of 'justified' is adopted."

Only someone who has no serious knowledge of the situation at the time would suggest that my statement was dubious. Abolitionists were active at inciting anti-slavery sentiment in the South through whatever means they could. I did not say that I agreed with the Southern morality of the time. Sadaam Hussein was also justified in his fear that President Bush might invade his country. That does not mean that I sympathize with the late president of Iraq or that I'm quibbling over the meaning of what "is" is.

"However, following St. Paul's own lead . . ."

Funny, I thought that St. Paul returned Onesimus.

"I find it ironic that, in order to glorify the antebellum South and demonize Lincoln as the American Hitler, certain paleo-conservatives have embraced economic explanations for the Civil War originally formulated by neo-Marxist historians such as James Beard."

I assume you did not have me in mind since I neither sought to glorify the antebellum South or demonize Lincoln. I'm not familiar with James Beard but I have heard the argument put in very stark Marxist terms before. Though not a Marxist, I have found that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Marxists make the argument in order to criticize the capitalists of the more industrial economy of the North since it is anathema to them to attribute any good work to benevolent capitalists. I have nothing against capitalism.

As to Ms. Warner's observations about those who abolished slavery being inspired by the Bible. That is certainly a fact; however, it overlooks the long history of Christian slavery. It seems much more plausible to me to attribute the abolition movement to the developing concept of political liberty which emerged from the English and French to produce our system of government. Christians often want to read their newfound convictions into their religion. You also see it in the use of the Exodus as an analogy to the freeing of African-American slaves.
The Israelites had the faith and the Egyptians were pagans. In America, for the most part, those African Americans imported as slaves learned the faith from Anglo-Americans.

In any case, it's a subject that could be discussed indefinitely.

[Scott Pennington]

Mr. Altena wrote,

"And unfortunately Mr. Pennington presents a seriously distorted synopsis of both the economic issues involved and the consequences, which would be tedious to correct necessarily at length."

Please give it a shot, if you have the means. Always seeking to learn.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Joe,

"'Not true. Slavery in the ancient world was primarily a social/economic status and did not have a specifically racial basis of justification.'

"How about the Gibeonites, sentenced to be 'hewers of wood and drawers of water' to Israel in perpetuity (Joshua 9:23)? Not to mention the Jews themselves, in their period of slavery in Egypt?"

There is no evidence that the bases for these were any sort of specifically racial ideology that held certain people to be biologically peculiarly fitted to be slaves of another people similarly fitted to be masters.

"The argument that ancient slavery was 'different' is simply the difference between the galleys and the salt mines, and the sugar cane and cotton fields...."

Again, no. In many ancient societies, slaves had legal rights that were totally lacking in the system of the antebellum South. E.g. just for starters, in ancient Rome slaves could file suit and testify in court, and own property (including slaves!) on an equal legal footing with free men. While doubtless for the majority of slaves both ancient and more recent life was equally brutal, there nevertheless was a significantly greater range of rights and opportunities for slaves in societies such as Rome than there was in the antebellum South, due in no small part to the absence of a racial justification for slavery.

More generally to all, some works that might be consulted --

Any of several works by M. I. (Moses I.) Finley (arguably the doyen on the topic of acient slavery)

Ayala, Levy, "Aspects of bondage and release in the Bible: comparative studies of Exodus 21:2-6, Leviticus 25:25-55, Deuteronomy 15:12-18."

Gregory C. Chirichigno, "Debt Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East."

(for Bisaal's question) Stepen R. Haynes, "Noah's Curse: the Biblical Justification of American Slavery."

[James A. Altena]

And I don't see much substance in Mr. Pennington's rejoinder.

I suggest that he consult some of the works mentioned in my immediately preceding post.

He also made no such more nuanced point about Lincoln as he claims. He simply stated that "Lincoln professed to be intent only on restoring the Union, not abolishing slavery."

As for the claim I find dubious, Mr. Pennington simply concedes in other words that he was relying on, as I said, "a rather qubbling formalistic meaning of 'justified'." (It is quite different from the example Mr. Pennington cites of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Pennington clearly sympathizes with the South against the abolitionists, and hence "justified" carries a different connotation.) Not to mention that Mr. Pennington presents no evidence, but only hypothetical speculation and assertion, to support his claims that immediate abolition would have resulted in a "depression and bloodbath" (no such bloodbath occured when abolition occurred, and the South's economy actually rebounded rather quickly even after the devastation of war) and that abolitionists had as their conscious goal the ruination of the Southern economy as well as its "social system." (A great euphemism for slavery, that -- rather like calling a preborn child a "product of conception").

"I assume you did not have me in mind since I neither sought to glorify the antebellum South or demonize Lincoln."

Correct -- but I thought you should be aware of the company your thought leans toward keeping. And a person who is not acquainted with the work of James Beard is not acquainted with the historiography of economic analyses of the causes of the Civil War. (Or, for that matter, the Revolutionary War -- Beard, along with his wife Mary, was also a major proponent of the argument that the American Revolution was primarily an action by a bourgeois commercial/gentry leadership class in the colonies seeking to preserve and expand its position of economic dominance.)

"'However, following St. Paul's own lead . . .'

"Funny, I thought that St. Paul returned Onesimus."

This objection cannot even be taken seriously. Exegetes have long noted that vv. 8-19 strongly imply that St. Paul urges and even expects Philemon to free Onesimus, but had the latter return to Philemon voluntarily in order that: a) it not be the case that Onesimus misuse conversion to Christianity as a pretext to gain freedom from slavery (per my previous post); b) that St. Paul not appear to be usurping the property or legal rights of another man, particularly another Christian; and c) that Philemon gain the reward and praise before God of acting virtuously in freeing Onesimus of his own will.

The final parapgraph to Judy simply ignores the point I made in my previous post about the unfolding trajectory of the implications of the Gospel and Western civilization. Sadly, due to human sin, that trajectory can take longer in some cases than in others to unfold and impress itself upon stubborn fallen human minds and hearts.

As for having the "means" to correct Mr. Pennington's sunderstanding -- I'm not sure what he means :-) by that. I trust he is not casting aspersions at my intellectual capacities. I have the reference works, but currently not the time, as I presently am changing over to a new job at my employer. I will try to write something if I can find the time, but offer no guarantees. But for starters, on the specific economics of slavery and the South, standard works include:

R. W. Fogel and S. L Engerman, "Time on the Cross: The Economics of Americna Negro Slavery." (1974; rev. ed. 1989) The cliometric work that ignited a firestorm in American history by arguing that slavery was, contrary to most previous arguments, economically profitable and efficient.

R. W. Fogel, "Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery." (1989) Same argument as previous work, combiend with more conventional treatment.

Pau A. David, et al. "Reckoning with Slavery: A Critical Study in the Quantitative History of American Negro Slavery." (1976) Essays by several scholars rebutting Fogel & Engerman.

On the post-Civil War Southern economy, one can turn to e.g. T. Glymph and J. J. Kushmas, eds., "Essays on the Postbellum Southern Economy."

On slavery itself, there are always the classic treatments of Eugene Genovese (originally Marxist, now of course a Roman Catholic), Kenneth Stampp, Ira Berlin, etc.

[Bisaal]

Since it is often claimed that anti-slavery sentiments arose only within the Christians, we ought to examine the evidence.

Hindus have had no slavery for a long time. At least before arrival of Bristish in 17th century.

Was there slavery among Chinese/Japanese?

[Bisaal]

To clarify the last comment, the Hindus had (and still have though not legally) bonded labour in which a person bonds himself (or his childern) to another in return for cash right now.
I am not sure if it would be called slavery in the Roman sense since the master does not own the bonded labourer.

[Judy Warner]

That is interesting, Bisaal. Did Hindus have slavery in the past? If so, do you know how and why they stopped?

[James A. Altena]

I must correct an idiotic but hilarious howler. I of course meant *Charles* Beard. James Beard is the TV show chef! Mea super maxima culpa!

[Scott Pennington]

I can see that Mr. Altena and I are not going to come to terms. I see lists of books but no quotes supporting his assertions that my points are invalid. Nonetheless, perhaps a short response is in order.

I certainly did not mean to cast aspersions on his intellect, he is correct in assuming that I meant by "means" the resources supporting his positions.

"But it is useful for you to learn that this Epistle was sent upon necessary matters. Observe therefore how many things are rectified thereby. We have this one thing first, that in all things it becomes one to be earnest. For if Paul bestows so much concern upon a runaway, a thief, and a robber, and does not refuse nor is ashamed to send him back with such commendations; much more does it become us not to be negligent in such matters. Secondly, that we ought not to abandon the race of slaves, even if they have proceeded to extreme wickedness. For if a thief and a runaway become so virtuous that Paul was willing to make him a companion, and says in this Epistle, "that in your stead he might have ministered unto me" (v. 13.), much more ought we not to abandon the free. Thirdly, that we ought not to withdraw slaves from the service of their masters. For if Paul, who had such confidence in Philemon, was unwilling to detain Onesimus, so useful and serviceable to minister to himself, without the consent of his master, much less ought we so to act. For if the servant is so excellent, he ought by all means to continue in that service, and to acknowledge the authority of his master, that he may be the occasion of benefit to all in that house. Why do you take the candle from the candlestick to place it in the bushel? . . .Let me also say one other thing. He teaches us not to be ashamed of our domestics, if they are virtuous. For if Paul, the most admirable of men, speaks thus much in favor of this one, much more should we speak favorably of ours."
- St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Philemon

The question is not whether Paul "implied" he wished Onesimus to be freed. The question is whether Paul or subsequent generations of Christians authoritatively advocated the abolition of slavery. Paul had the perfect opportunity to proclaim a policy of mandatory manumission but refused. You read too much into the text.

Mr. Altena wrote,

"The final parapgraph to Judy simply ignores the point I made in my previous post about the unfolding trajectory of the implications of the Gospel and Western civilization. Sadly, due to human sin, that trajectory can take longer in some cases than in others to unfold and impress itself upon stubborn fallen human minds and hearts."

Yes, ignore what people choose to read into the faith as its "implications" that simply confirm their own convictions. That was my entire point. I ignore what those who favor women's ordination say are the "implications" of the faith. I ignore what those who wish to normalize sodomy say are the "implications" of the faith. This I am not ashamed of. My point has always been that Christianity neither mandates or prohibits slavery and that we should beware of invoking Christianity as an abolitionist religion because for most of its history this has simply been untrue.

I will be glad to see the day, if I live that long, when slavery no longer exists on earth. I will, of course, not live to see the day when all Christians are honest about their religion.

"I thought you should be aware of the company your thought leans toward keeping. And a person who is not acquainted with the work of James Beard is not acquainted with the historiography of economic analyses of the causes of the Civil War."

I was a political science major in undergrad before going to law school. Charles Beard does sound more familiar. A Marxist professor made an observation similar to Mr. Altena's regarding the comments of an African-American student on another subject (the student made a quasi-Marxist observation regarding a similar question). It was an interesting moment. Marxists follow the economic interest. That is always a wise perspective to keep in mind. It is simply their moral conclusions and prescriptions that are unfortunate.

Mr. Altena wrote,

"He also made no such more nuanced point about Lincoln as he claims. He simply stated that 'Lincoln professed to be intent only on restoring the Union, not abolishing slavery.'"

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Previously I wrote,

"I should clarify, when I wrote that slavery was not originally an issue for the North, I meant that once the war was afoot and the South had seceeded, Lincoln professed to be intent only on restoring the Union, not abolishing slavery."

Notice the date on the above letter is August of 1862. The war was afoot. Notice also that I first wrote, before Mr. Altena's observation, that "slavery was not ORIGINALLY an issue for the North". So I'm not sure from where the "nuance" or misunderstanding originates.

As for his remarks about keeping intellectual company with paleoconservatives who demonize Lincoln as Hitler and glorify the Old South, I will not dignify them with further comment.

[Scott Pennington]

On review of this exchange, it may be that Mr. Altena and I are not really disagreeing about dispassionate facts but their implications. It seems clear to me that the North sought to impose tariffs on the export of southern cotton. It also seems clear to me that the South opposed such tariffs. From what I have read, the motivations behind this included the desire of the North not to compete with Europe in a freer market for southern cotton since part of the industrial activity in the North was textile. The South being a cotton producing primarily agrarian economy bottomed on slavery, they naturally saw abolitionism not only as condescending moral imperialism (from their perspective), but also as a threat to their economy. I'm not sure what disagreement Mr. Altena would have on these observations. Much of this exchange may be needless quibbling on both sides.

[James A. Altena]

Mr. Pennington,

1) Your lengthy post of correspondence of Lincoln is interesting, but evades the point -- you did *not* state *any* of this explicitly in your original post. My original response was to what you *actually* wrote. You can't just add things in later posts (the "nuance") and then claim that they were present in your original post. It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually wrote, as I have done with you.

2) Your quote from Chrysostom likewise contradicts nothing I have said, and agrees with my point about the Gospel not being misused to gain freedom for slaves.

3) "The question is not whether Paul 'implied' he wished Onesimus to be freed. The question is whether Paul or subsequent generations of Christians authoritatively advocated the abolition of slavery."

No. No-one here has ever said or implied that the Scriptures overtly or authoritatively advocated the abolition of slvery. The issue has been whether there is, to use my term once again, a trajectory is present in Scripture that ultimately leads in that direction as its deeper implications are better understood. (E.g. Cardinal Newman would have understood this quite well.) It is you who now suddenly introduces the term "authoritatively advocated the abolition of slavery" which has not been heretofore present. Or perhaps at least we can agree that both questions have been present, and that you are addressing one and I the other.

4) "I can see that Mr. Altena and I are not going to come to terms. I see lists of books but no quotes supporting his assertions that my points are invalid."

I also wrote:

"I have the reference works, but currently not the time, as I presently am changing over to a new job at my employer. I will try to write something if I can find the time, but offer no guarantees."

Again, Mr. Pennington, it would be nice if you read and responded to what I wrote.

It is quite possible that we are less in disagreement over the economic issues surrounding the Civil War that might have originally been supposed, but unfortunately I don't have time to address it in detail. At least I suggested a few scholarly books that address your points. Your sources, sir?

5) "As for his remarks about keeping intellectual company with paleoconservatives who demonize Lincoln as Hitler and glorify the Old South, I will not dignify them with further comment."

The intellectual company you keep is your choice. And I do not ask you to dignify either me or anything I write.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to see the orthopaedist to find out if I need back surgery -- another reason I presently lack time, as some friends here at MC know.

[Judy Warner]

Scott Pennington wrote:

Yes, ignore what people choose to read into the faith as its "implications" that simply confirm their own convictions. That was my entire point. I ignore what those who favor women's ordination say are the "implications" of the faith. I ignore what those who wish to normalize sodomy say are the "implications" of the faith.

Christians did not lead the way to normalizing sodomy. But Christians did lead the way in opposing slavery. Those who want to normalize sodomy have already adopted the secular society's view of things and simply search around to find justification for it in Scripture or somewhere they can relate to religion. The equality of man under God is already there in Christianity and Judaism. Those who opposed slavery set themselves against the surrounding society in the name of their religion.

[Rob Grano]

"As for his remarks about keeping intellectual company with paleoconservatives who demonize Lincoln as Hitler and glorify the Old South..."

I am both sympathetic to the Old South (except touching slavery) and fairly critical of Lincoln; it is a difficult position to explain to people in the current political era of liberal anti-Southernism and Lincoln adoration. One of the best things on the Civil War that I've read is Robert Penn Warren's THE LEGACY OF THE CIVIL WAR, which he wrote in 1961 for the centennial. It is very much in the spirit of Eugene Genovese's work, laying blame and praising the good on both sides, wherever due.

[Joe Long]

James, you wrote about the Gibeonites enslaved by Israel and the Jews in slavery in Egypt:

"There is no evidence that the bases for these were any sort of specifically racial ideology that held certain people to be biologically peculiarly fitted to be slaves of another people similarly fitted to be masters."

Maybe not. So what?

Racial ideology of that sort did not precede or inspire African slavery in America either; it was a minority rationalization used among certain Southern intellectuals to try to make an existing situation more palatable, or to try to explain in retrospect how it had come to be. Certainly it was not a "basis" for slavery. The basis for slavery was economic, as it had generally been throughout history. And it never held legal force; as I pointed out earlier, black freemen lived in the American states, held property (including slaves) and so forth. I don't know how many American slaves owned slaves - a vanishingly small number, I suspect - but Robert Smalls of Charleston was, I know, saving money to "purchase" his wife in 1863, seemingly without concern that he himself was still "property". Nor was manumission that uncommon, during much of the period of African slavery in America.

I haven't your familiarity with slavery in the ancient world, and I thank you for the references. I do think sensationalist abolitionist propaganda like Stowe's - and that abysmally researched "Roots", make up far too much of the popular conception of American slavery. I can recommend Elizabeth Fox-Genovese's final work "The Mind of the Master Class" even before I read it, and even though it's sure to refine and perhaps contradict my own views - she was an incredible scholar. Time spent among the WPA's slave narratives is time well spent, too - but beware popular collections which cherry-pick the accounts to give undergraduates a "proper perspective".

On the comparison of abolitionists and theological "liberals": well, some abolitionists WERE (Julia Ward Howe, anyone? Abolition may have been the only idea she ever had that I could agree with). Some of that was a matter of temperament; as Chesterton said, progressives want to make new mistakes, while conservatives strive to keep old mistakes from being corrected.

Here in the US, that could be stated regionally: the Northeast generally wants to make new mistakes, the South to persist in old ones. (And denominationally, too, but I won't give examples.) Sometimes there's much more temperament than reason in that process, and so I think there's room for some charity - and considerable amusement - in communicating with each other.

[Bisaal]

Were the Gideonites actual slaves or were they just like Hindu outcastes-relegated to menial jobs and some legal restrictions (no literacy, segregation).

I havent studied Hindu scriptures a lot but there are no slavery in the more popular such as Gita or Ram Charit Manas (Of Tulsidas).

[Scott Pennington]

Mr. Altena,

I sympathize with you in your ailment, I have two bad disks myself. I hope your treatment is successful.

Nonetheless, I do not see that your last post added anything new to the discussion or actually addressed what I wrote. I have read what you posted. If I understood more of where we might disagree on economic causes of the war, I could respond using some type of academic support. Listing books doesn't cut it in a discussion of this type because we don't even know where, if anywhere, we disagree on that question.

On the question of the Christian attitude to slavery, you suggested that a number of scholars support your position, I provided the quote of a church father to support mine. Whatever the modern attitudes, you can see that in the world that defined traditional Christianity that abolition of slavery does not seem to be a concern.

"Trajectory" is too vague an idea for me to hang my hat on. I'm Orthodox and we have a fairly well defined Tradition. I maintain that "trajectory" is the best friend of liberal revisionists and reject it as authoritative.

You are dead wrong about the "nuance" you import to my comments on Lincoln as anyone who reads my posts above can see for themselves.

Originally, in my first post on this, I wrote:
"One problem that Christians face when approaching the question of slavery is that there is nothing in traditional Christianity that opposes it. Slavery and other lesser forms of servitude were the norm in Christian civilization and the pre-Christian Hebrew civilization."

Your point about a trajectory may be valid in the form of Christianity you practice to the extent that it relies on the works of modern exegetes to establish what constitutes "traditional Christianity". That disagreement may stem from a difference in understanding as to what is actually Christian teaching. However, as with the "trajectory" idea you introduced above, I do not see where such thinking logically stops short of the "Jesus Seminar" type travesties.

In any case, we've talked this puppy to death and nothing good can come of it further.

Again, I wish you the best of luck in your therapy and God bless.

[Judy Warner]

Bisaal, could it be that Hindus didn't have slaves because they didn't need them, with the caste system providing the laborers to do the work that slaves would have done?

[Scott Pennington]

Ms. Warner wrote,

"Those who want to normalize sodomy have already adopted the secular society's view of things and simply search around to find justification for it in Scripture or somewhere they can relate to religion."

And part of my point is that those who wished to abolish slavery got the impetus from their own sense of mercy and the political liberty of recent vintage in America and Western Europe. They then proceeded to read those abolitionist sentiments into scripture. It is perfectly understandable given that appealing to the common humanity of the people at the time, either in the North or the South, would be a stretch. Much better to marry the movement to religion in order to inspire people and characterize it as the will of God.

"The equality of man under God is already there in Christianity and Judaism."

The Hebrews of the Old Testament hardly believed in the equality of man. The practiced various forms of servitude and had their own concepts of ethnic purity.

As to Christianity, there are those who would read their own modern interpretations into phrases like, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, free nor slave, or male nor female." However, those were not the sentiments of the Church from the beginning until relatively recently. They understood those words to mean that all were "equal" in their Christianity, not politically. Jews remained Jews (ethnically), Greeks remained Greeks, males remained males, females remained females, freemen remained freemen and slaves remained slaves.

[Nick]

Scott I was silently agreeing with you on most points till you got here. Christianity and Judaism propose that all mankind came from the same parents. This is very different from the various "the people" myths present in other earlier faiths. Israel is given early prescriptions against attacking neighboring tribes because they are "cousins" or "brothers". It is communal guilt that drives the eventual pogroms and mass slaveries. Communal guilt that is escaped in the blaring case of the Gideonites. James is right that this sets up a trajectory for the development of tradition. Its a trajectory because of the following:
1.) Slavery exists only because of communal guilt or payment of debt in the Law
2.) Slavery differs from the surrounding tribes in that slaves have rights. For example, the right of release (Hebrew only), the right of a day of rest, and the right to maintain their family (though it seems draconian by modern standards). Its interesting to note that the slaves of the various nations round about can avoid being owned by converting.
3.) The Israelites are reminded that they *were* slaves. This casts the whole institution in a rather poor light.
4.) Solomon is praised for keeping the Israelites free from slavery.
5.) By Jeremiah's time the proscription against owning Judean slaves appears to be more absolute. It is considered a moral wrong to hold them *at all*.
6.) Jesus then extends the national rights of Israel to the "New Israel" Christianity. While not under Law they are to pass beyond the Law in conduct so....why should they own their fellow countrymen?
7.) Paul then effectively uses this reasoning by claiming Onesimus as his son using, what is by now, a well worn Christian motiff.
...
...
N.) I can probably fill in the additional steps but the end of the story is that Christianity proposes owning your brother is a bad thing.

Slavery in the South was bad, and the Christian South should have recognized it as such. That there was such a serious and violent moral argument about it at all and that the South felt compelled to try to make a biblical case for slavery (from the OT of all things) is probably more damning than anything.

The Civil War was a useless bloodbath, but it happened because of Southern moral lapse.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Joe,

We disagree. It has been well documented by scholars that slavery in the antebellum South differed significantly from that practiced in previous slave societies such as Greece and Rome in that it had a specific racial basis to it, in theory as well as in practice. While apologetics with more general reference to this rationale go back to the 1600s (and into the 1500 for slavery in the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires), it assumed definitive form after c. 1750 when the classificatory schemata of Carl Linnaeus for flora and fauna, resulting in the creation of the notion of biological species as a particular and segregable type of organism, was applied to homo sapiens. (This is an interesting sideline for here from my main speciality area of history of science. Another sideline, albeit in the speculative realm, is whether agricultural chemistry, first pioneered in the 1830s by Justus Liebig but only coming into more general use by the 1860s, might have served to prolong slavery in the South by slowing or even reversing soil depletion resulting from intensive cultivation of tobacco and cotton.)

To say that "The basis for slavery was economic, as it had generally been throughout history" is to equivocate on the meaning and/or application of "basis." The statement is unproblematic insofar as for most people there would be no great point to enslaving someone unless tangible benefit was derived from so dong. But there is an enormous difference between that, and a position that asserts that certain types of human beings identifiable by specific inheritable biological traits are on account of those specifically fitted to be slaves. On an economic basis alone, *anyone* can be enslaved; on a racial basis, only the members of the specific racial group can be enslaved to fulfill the economic goal.

In any case, your "so what" evades the fact that you are the one who originally suggested the enslavement of the Gibeonites and the Israelites in Egypt to have a racial basis -- which was the point at issue between us.

[David Gray]

>We disagree. It has been well documented by scholars that slavery in the antebellum South differed significantly from that practiced in previous slave societies such as Greece and Rome in that it had a specific racial basis to it, in theory as well as in practice.

It might be worth noting that many theological defenders of slavery were also highly critical of how the South practiced it.

[James A. Altena]

Mr. Pennignton,

As I said, I don't have time for a full answer right now. I listed some books in an effort to be helpful as an interim measure, not as an explanatory answer. Please respect that instead of objecting to it.

I never disagreed with you that "in the world that defined traditional Christianity that abolition of slavery does not seem to be a concern." Indeed, I specified why that was so in refering to the epistle to Philemon. What I said was that a progressively deeper understanding of the Gospel, by contemplation of it over the centuries, gradually led Christians to understand its implications for slavery and apply those accordingly.

To restate a point I made before, Christianity formed modern Western civilization (per e.g. Christopher Dawson); therefore, I reject the dichotomy you made implicitly in suggesting that abolition of slavery be attributed to some modern impulse independent of Christianity. (I.e., your statement that "civilized humanity has outgrown the institution rather than attribute religious justification to [abolitionism]", and following implication that anyone who believes otherwise is less than honest -- and why not allow a possibility for honest error here instead?) My point was and is that "civilized humanity" is precisely a product of the molding of Western culture by Christian doctrine and practice. To the extent it becomes more truly civilized (as opposed to the current descent back to pre-Christian barbarity), it becomes more truly Christian. If it did "outgrow the institution," it did so precisely because it became more maturely Christian.

Civilization does not burst our full-grown all at once, like Athena from the head of Zeus; it develops over time. The same is true of the understanding of the faith by the Church; there is a process of growth involved. Christ said that the Spirit "shall teach you all things" and "shall guide you into all truth" -- not that he would grant us immediate, instantaneous, and perfect apprehension of all things from the beginning.

As to "nuance", once again you mis-read me. To put it in different words, what I said was that your original post did not make a qualification that your subsequent posts did, and that it is unfair of you to object to my original response as if you had done so originally. The whole dispute on this point could easily have been avoided if you had simply said in your first response after your original post, "I was a bit too brief, and I actually meant (etc.)."

I'm sorry that you choose to quibble over my use of "trajectory." I would have thought that the reference to Newman would have been more than sufficient to distinguish it from the "Jesus Seminar" types. The difference between the two is simple enough to state. A proper trajectory will be completely consonant with the entire Tradition and simply extend it to a deeper and fuller expression of its own true nature. An improper one (such as the Jesus Seminar), like all heresies, selectively picks one aspect of the Tradition, takes it out of context and distorts it to fit some modern pre-occupation, and ends up contradicting some or all of the Tradition in opposition to its nature. In the former, the past determines the present and hence also the future; in the latter, there is an Orwellian determination to use the present to re-write the past in order thereby to control the future. It is the difference between the boy who naturally grows up to be a man and the boy who is unnaturally subjected to a neo-Frankenstein experiment that results in a horrible mutant, and then has his ancestors' genetic records fraudulently altered to show that the mutations were inherent in his chromosones.

Thank you for your kind wishes regarding my back. Unfortunately the news does not look good at this point. I will find out more in a week.

Thanks to Nick for his supporting post.

[James A. Altena]

"It might be worth noting that many theological defenders of slavery were also highly critical of how the South practiced it."

Yes -- but, were they higly critical of the actual treatment of slaves in practice, or highly critical of the racial theory itself that justified slavery? The evidence overwhelmingly points to the former and not the latter. A "kinder, gentler" practice of slavery can still have a racial justification for who is or is not fitted to be a slave.

[Nick]

I almost forgot to comment on Hinduism and slaves! To which I answer baloney! The caste system with the untouchables constituted for most purposes slavery. I'd also be hard pressed to believe, that with the variety of sovereign states that composed what has become modern India not one practiced a traditional form of slavery. This is even more strange in that India's trading partners (Greece, Persia, and China) all had slaves.

[David Gray]

>Yes -- but, were they higly critical of the actual treatment of slaves in practice, or highly critical of the racial theory itself that justified slavery? The evidence overwhelmingly points to the former and not the latter.

That is correct but it is still a correction worth noting. The greatest problem with Southern slavery was with its actual practice, not its racial theories.

[Rob Grano]

"The greatest problem with Southern slavery was with its actual practice, not its racial theories."

I agree, David, which is not to say that the racial theories weren't a problem. Fact is, in many ways the North was just as racist in theory as the South was. There were many people of that period that simply believed, as a fact, that Negroes were racially inferior to Whites. This by no means justifies the Southern slaveholders's often terrible treatment of slaves, but it does demonstrate that the theory wasn't by any means limited to the South.

[Nick]

Almost forgot, the Mongols, who held Indian kingdoms, also held slaves.

[James A. Altena]

David --

"The greatest problem with Southern slavery was with its actual practice, not its racial theories."

This is a false distinction, since much of the actual practice was significantly shaped by the racial theories. A society that believes slaves to be inherently inferior biologically and thus suited for slavery has inherently fewer limitations on brutality than one in which masters and slaves are regarded as equal in terms of personhood but unequal in social status. This point too is I think implicit in St. Paul's letter to Philemon (cf. also Gal. 3:28). The slave who is regarded as a brother in Christ, or as someone who is potentially such by conversion, will be treated by a master fundamentally differently than one who is not so regarded.

The point is that biologically determinist theories of human superiority and inferiority are inherently far more pernicious than ones based upon alterable social and economic status. The former inevitably lead to an ultimate expression in genocide, while the latter does not. Hasn't the 20th c., with Nazism as a bitter fruit of Social Darwinism and eugenics, given enough evidence of this?

Rob --

The fact that the North was also racist doesn't mean that "racial theories weren't a problem." They were -- for the non slave-holding North as well as the slaveholding South. As I've just pointed out, racial theories are *always* a problem, period.

[Bisaal]

Were the untouchables bought or sold?. Never. There exist no tradition or memory among Hindus that people were bought or sold. This is not to say that their life was hard and severely circumscribed legally and their lot might be worse than a slave under a Christian but the untouchables were not anybody's slaves (but rather like Gypsies of Europe).

That Mongols or Mughals have done so is neither here or there. Mongols arent Hindus.

[Rob Grano]

'The fact that the North was also racist doesn't mean that "racial theories weren't a problem." They were -- for the non slave-holding North as well as the slaveholding South. As I've just pointed out, racial theories are *always* a problem, period.'

Right, James. But this bears out what David said -- the main problem in the South was the practice, not the theory. The North had more or less the same theory but didn't put it into practice the same way.

[Ethan Cordray]

Debating what was the "main problem" with Southern slavery seems a little odd to me. "Main problem" is a pretty vague phrase. Do you mean what was the proximate cause, or what was the ultimate cause?

The racial theory seems to me like a more fundamental cause, for as James has said it gave license for the evil practices. On the other hand, the actual practices themselves were the proximate element that distinguished Southern slavery from Northern racism.

Remember, there was anti-black violence in the North during the same period (e.g. the New York draft riots), so the common ideology of racial inferiority did lead to the same sorts of consequences in the North. Yet the institutionalization of the ideology is what led to large-scale abuses in the South, while in the North the lack of a strong economic interest in perpetuating the theory allowed more room for some people to question it.

All this makes the earlier British abolitionist movement all the more remarkable, as it took root in a society that did have an economic interest in sustaining the ideology, and certainly much less interest in going to the lengths it later did to destroy slavery internationally.

[Judy Warner]

There's a wonderful article on FrontPage Magazine on a Church of English bishop -- of Pakistani origin! -- who refuses to join the chorus of apologies for slavery, instead celebrating the great achievement of English Christians in abolishing it. It's Breaking the P.C. Law by Mark Tooley.

From the article: Contrary to the demonstrators pleading, "So sorry" for slavery, the Bishop of Rochester concluded that Britain has a "proud history in this area, which can be a source of inspiration for us in our efforts in our own times." The bishop would readily admit that Western civilization, like all cultures, is sinful and even corrupt. But its Jewish and Christian traditions have uniquely given it a reforming impulse that has enabled vast humanizing improvements across the centuries.

[Scott Pennington]

Mr. Altena and I have come about as far as we can, I thank him for the exchange but stand by everything I've written. Also, I will pray for him regarding his back problems.

I will try to address Nick's comments point by point:

1.) Slavery exists only because of communal guilt or payment of debt in the Law

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

If you have support for your above statement, I would be interested to see it.

2.) Slavery differs from the surrounding tribes in that slaves have rights. For example, the right of release (Hebrew only), the right of a day of rest, and the right to maintain their family (though it seems draconian by modern standards). Its interesting to note that the slaves of the various nations round about can avoid being owned by converting.

In general, I agree with your above statement, nonetheless, it does not disprove my point.

3.) The Israelites are reminded that they *were* slaves. This casts the whole institution in a rather poor light.

Only for Israelites, and yet they practiced it among their own people, under the Law, even after the Exodus.

4.) Solomon is praised for keeping the Israelites free from slavery.

This must mean free of slavery to other powers since slavery existed in Israel during his reign. If you have a quote that establishes that Solomon abolished slavery as an institution applicable to Israelites, then I will stand corrected on this particular point. It could not, however, affect the larger argument.

5.) By Jeremiah's time the proscription against owning Judean slaves appears to be more absolute. It is considered a moral wrong to hold them *at all*.

I'm not sure what quote you have in mind for Jeremiah, please elaborate.

6.) Jesus then extends the national rights of Israel to the "New Israel" Christianity. While not under Law they are to pass beyond the Law in conduct so....why should they own their fellow countrymen?

Yet Christians continued to practice slavery and the Apostles had many opportunities to cast it in an evil light or abolish it for Christians and they never did so.

7.) Paul then effectively uses this reasoning by claiming Onesimus as his son using, what is by now, a well worn Christian motiff.

And yet Christians for centuries (see my quote from St. John Chrysostom above) did not see anything intolerant of the institution of slavery in Christ's words or St. Paul's words or actions. Anyone can make such a trajectory out as you have, but does it stand up to scrutiny?

Beyond that, I don't know what to say except this: Christianity is one thing, complete upon delivery. It is true that the implications of this or that doctrine, carefully by duly consecrated authorities, can be elicited. But these implications cannot contradict what came before. Christ, St. Paul, the other Apostles and many generations of Christians since, through the ecumenical councils, up to the fairly recent past, have allowed slavery as an institution to be compatible with Christianity. Now, I have said that as a practical matter, on grounds of our evolution in liberty, on general principles of mercy, because Christianity does not mandate slavery, I oppose slavery and racial discrimination and will be glad when they vanish from the earth. Nonetheless, traditional Christianity permits it and I refuse to criticize previous generations of good Christians, from St. Paul to the Old South, as Christians, for practicing it. As human beings in a society founded on individual liberty, I think they could have been more merciful and far sighted. But to say they were bad Christians for practicing slavery is beyond me.

[Rob Grano]

Ethan, I think your summary of the slavery problem is accurate. You said, in a more expansive, detailed way, what I meant.
I'm not sure, though, that I would describe slavery in the South as the "institutionalization of an ideology." After all, the institution had been in existence long before there was a racist ideology to back it up.

[Ethan Cordray]

Fair enough, Rob. It's sort of a chicken and egg problem, as the institution generates an ideological justification which in turn shapes the character of the institution.

My point is that in the North the same ideology existed without the same institution, and while it caused similar problems they weren't of the same scale or cultural intractability as those in the South. Late Southern slavery (after the development of racial justification) may be a classic case of institutional entrenchment of an ideology.

But now I'm starting to sound like a sociologist, so I'd better take a break. :-)

[Joe Long]

Indeed, the institution preceded the ideology - and a conscious ideology of white supremecy developed late, and was written into laws mostly in the post-reconstruction period. Including Northern laws.

As "racism" is the single unforgiveable social sin of our day and society, we do tend to forget that men could firmly believe in significant racial differences, and even deduce from those differences varying appropriate social roles, yet attempt to apply those beliefs with charity -which is what many abolitionists and some sincere paternalists were each attempting to do, in their divergent ways.

[Rob Grano]

"But now I'm starting to sound like a sociologist, so I'd better take a break."

Heaven forbid!! You might want to have a drink while you're at it. ;-) Actually, I think you're right about the ideology and the institution feeding off each other.

[Rob Grano]

'As "racism" is the single unforgiveable social sin of our day and society, we do tend to forget that men could firmly believe in significant racial differences, and even deduce from those differences varying appropriate social roles, yet attempt to apply those beliefs with charity -which is what many abolitionists and some sincere paternalists were each attempting to do, in their divergent ways.'

Great point, Joe.

[Nick]

First, remember that I'm not trying to overcome your primary theses, that slavery was allowed under Christian and Jewish law, but your secondary point, that there is not trajectory of tradition *against* it. Think of my points as drawing a line on a graph.

1.) The law in Leviticus is given after the Exodus and after the refusal of the Amonites and Edomites to assist in the Israelites. I can dig them up but there are several quotes, contra current popular wisdom with the death penalty, that it is better to die than to be a slave or to be displayed before your enemies. Therefore, it can be argued, that the original command to exterminate the existing inhabitants was *more* merciful than the resulting punishment of being enslaved. Prior to Leviticus 25 we have:
Deuteronomy 2:19 and 2:37 (I would presume that we agree that slave raids are an act of war)

By Deut 23:3 things have changed. They are playing now under different rules. This is a punishment. God, reserving divine prerogative, can commit an entire nation to slavery.

2.) We are agreed

3.) Agreed. Remember, unlike you I'm not trying to quasi-defend (if someone can insert a better word that I'd be happy for a suggestion; I don't mean to imply he's defending slavery per se) a more modern practice. I'm just trying to show it becoming less and less desirable in a divinely inspired context.

4.) Again, no. That's not my intention. My intention is to show that, as 2 Chronicles 8:9 appears to point out, that slavery amongst the Hebrews was in decline and celebrated. Also, that God saw fit to have that celebration recorded.

5.) The quotes gone missing! I'll try to find it again.

6.) Again, no argument. However the moral case is continuing to constrict. Slavery, because it bonds your brother, is wrong *biblically*. Paul is leaving Philemon to figure this out himself. This runs in similar vain to Jesus words about giving a snake to your child. A good father wouldn't do that right? Would a good father enslave his son? A good brother enslave his brother?

7.) But no one is arguing that slavery isn't possible, just that the Bible views the practice as wrong. Look, we could even go to step (8) with the communal breaking of bread found in the Eucharist and point out that this was a strong symbol against slavery.

A totally free society was not possible at the time. People could not move as freely as they do today in the West. But the seeds were sown.

Again back to the Hinduism comments. I've confirmed it through an Indian source that serfdom (a form of slavery through exchange of land) was practiced. He is a student of history, but not an expert. I do have a contact of a contact into the Indian educational community and I'm going to be checking in there (hopefully) later today.

[David Gray]

>As "racism" is the single unforgiveable social sin of our day and society, we do tend to forget that men could firmly believe in significant racial differences, and even deduce from those differences varying appropriate social roles, yet attempt to apply those beliefs with charity -which is what many abolitionists and some sincere paternalists were each attempting to do, in their divergent ways.

Just don't be a Cretan...

[Ethan Cordray]

A bit gnomic, David. Are you alluding to Titus?

[James A. Altena]

Ethan has reconciled Rob and myself here. Bravo, Ethan!

Thanks to Nick for his latest post.

"As "racism" is the single unforgiveable social sin of our day and society. . . ."

Oh, really? What about sexism, homophobia, militarism, and being opposed to abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research? Or -- Heaven forfend -- being a devout Christian?

Would that there only only *one* such unforgiveable socIal sin!

[David Gray]

>A bit gnomic, David. Are you alluding to Titus?

Spot on!

[Scott Pennington]

Nick,

I read your last post and I really don't see much beyond reading modern feelings into the text and practice of tradition.

"Slavery, because it bonds your brother, is wrong *biblically*. Paul is leaving Philemon to figure this out himself."

There is simply no support for this. It is what we, who are morally offended by slavery, would have wanted the case to be. Both the sexism and tolerant attitude toward involuntary servitude expressed throughout the Bible are incompatible with modern views, even among many "conservative" Christians. The danger in fudging and making the argument that you do is not only its lack of basis in tradition, but that the same type of argument can be (and is)made to support other extra-biblical, extra-traditional ideas. Since Christianity contains no mandate to engage in slavery, the wiser course, rather than protecting the tender ssnsibilities of the faithful and reading our feelings and "should haves" onto the thinest of possible bases in scripture, is to just be honest, admit we've outgrown it morally and move on. "Trajectory" does not, nor should it have any authority in Christianity because anyone can make a case based on disparate texts for whatever "trajectory" they favor.

[Joe Long]

This thread could be an eternal one - but I shall add to it one more time, because there is a review at "washtimes.com" of a new book focusing on Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson's relations with slaves and specifically with the "colored" Sunday School he started in Lexington, Virginia. Look for it at the menu under "Sections" under the heading "Civil War". Apparently the book includes interviews with descendants of members of his class.

[James A. Altena]

"Trajectory" does not, nor should it have any authority in Christianity because anyone can make a case based on disparate texts for whatever 'trajectory' they favor."

Patently false -- as I previously indicated why, and theologians as eminent as Cardinal Newman have explained. And he was far from alone in so doing. One can distinguish true from false trajectories by whether they are fully in harmony with Scripture and Tradition (and I favor the Orthodox view of Scripture as the chiefest part of the Tradition, not something separate form it), or whether it takes one part of the Tradition out of context and sets it agaianst the rest. It seems that we have here an instance of what the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory refered to among the Orthodox as "morphophobia."

Once again, Mr. Pennington simply ignores his opponents' arguments rather than addressing them, and seeks to declare himself the victor by a posteriori and ex post facto redefinitions of the issues and questions under debate on terms favorable to himself.

[Scott Pennington]

Mr. Altena,

Why don't you quote somebody or something rather than pontificating that this one says this or that one says that? Then we might have something to talk about besides our "feelings" on this matter.

We can go on forever saying, "you're wrong" "no, you're wrong". It's meaningless.

Trajectory and tradition are two different things, at least as they've been used on this thread. As used here "trajectory" amounts to little more than wishful thinking concerning this or that isolated quote from the Bible that soothes ones conscience about our Christian past. "I feel that all decent people must deep down have been against slavery. Therefore I seek, and therefore find, support in this or that passage." That's what it all boils down to.

It actually reminds me of the moderate feminist arguments regarding the "headship" of the family. What are the rules of "trajectory"? What control is there on it? Is it for this or that scholar to posit a trajectory and everyone else is supposed to salute? How many scholars, or cardinals exactly does it take to elevate a posited "trajectory" to the status of tradition? The Apostles did not condemn slavery. Christians practiced slavery of one sort or another throughout the period when Holy Tradition was being elicited. There were perhaps some saints in the Middle Ages who disapproved of chattel slavery. The real solid opposition to slavery came from a protestantism divided on the subject. Convictions gained two hundred years ago or less, in one little part of Christiandom by part of the protestant faithful cannot possibly be considered "traditional" in the face of all that came before. To paraphrase St. Vincent, "that which has been believed always, by everyone everywhere - - that is the catholic faith". That is the criterion of what is traditional. Even protestants seek antiquity, universality and consent as a measure of what is traditional Christianity. How could moral intolerance toward slavery ever pass that test?

[Scott Pennington]

"One can distinguish true from false trajectories by whether they are fully in harmony with Scripture and Tradition (and I favor the Orthodox view of Scripture as the chiefest part of the Tradition, not something separate form it), or whether it takes one part of the Tradition out of context and sets it agaianst the rest."

Yes, but we Orthodox reserve interpretation of these things to councils of bishops or the writings of the Church Fathers long accepted by the Orthodox. You are setting "trajectory" against long standing toleration of slavery not only in the Bible but through many centuries of Christianity. If it is unChristian now, it was unChristian then.

"It seems that we have here an instance of what the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory refered to among the Orthodox as 'morphophobia.'"

I'm not sure what Fr. Schmemann had in mind exactly by the term; however, my inclination is to wear the term as a badge of honor. Yes, the faith is not some transitory thing that changes like a candle in the wind. Yes, there should be some firm standard as to what constitutes tradition lest we dissolve into many sects and argue about essential matters. But this is not an essential matter. It is not a question settled by the faith. Christians can disagree morally about whether slavery is to be tolerated. I do not agree with those who would say it is morally acceptable today; however, I do not do so by invoking some nebulous trajectory. That opens us up, rightly, to charges of hypocrisy.

[James A. Altena]

The problem, Mr. Pennington, is that you repeatedly ignore how I have defined and used the term "trajectory" here to unilaterally impose your own pejorative connotation upon it. Your latest post is yet another illustration of this. But as a philosophy professor taught me some 30 years ago, "You can't just *define* your opponent into being wrong."

"Why don't you quote somebody or something rather than pontificating that this one says this or that one says that?"

Aside from one post, you haven't exactly been providing a slew of quotes. Tu quoque, anyone? And in any case, I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself.

"Then we might have something to talk about besides our 'feelings' on this matter."

I have never used the term "feelings" here. I deal in thoughts and beliefs in discussion.

Finally, you also keep poisoning the well by implying that anyone who disagrees with you on this matter is being less than honest ("It is better to be honest and say that civilized humanity has outgrown the institution rather than attribute religious justification to it") or is open to "charges of hypocrisy. One cannot have a civil discussion with a person who engages in such unseemly tactics, so I will not endeavor to do so any longer.

[Joe Long]

And yet, gentlemen, and yet...

Sit back a moment and savor one pleasant "feeling": the knowledge that BOTH sides of a debate should at least consider an accusation of arguing from "feelings" to be insulting. Surely that admirable shared sensibility alone is cultural common ground enough, in today's world - indeed, it civilizes things quite a bit.

[Scott Pennington]

Perhaps Mr. Long, however, I've begun a new policy for myself. Mr. Altena is right insofar as he asserts that we disagree on definitions. I have finally learned a lesson which will serve me well in the future: Don't discuss religion with heterodox Christians, unless they are disaffected. Stay with your own or with the unchurched (for evangelization purposes). I'm ceasing posting at all anywhere but Orthodox sites, if that. It's such a waste of time, to no benefit for anyone. At one point I admired the spirit behind Touchstone, but alas that is past.

[Bill R]

James? Heterodox?? Come on, now--this is too much!

[James A. Altena]

Returning vey belatedly --

"At one point I admired the spirit behind Touchstone, but alas that is past."

That is self-evident. "Alas that is past" is true, but alas for Mr. Pennington rather than Touchstone.

[lori]

i need help answering some questions can someone help me?
here's the questions:
1. how did uncle tom's cabin add to bad feelings between the north and the south?
2. support why you feel John Brown was a hero or villain using two reasons.
3.what caused "Bleeding kansas?"
4.give one reason why the compromises made in the early 1800s, were or were not good for the country.

plz help me

[David Gray]

Someone has a term paper due...