Thanks for sharing that, sweetstuff.
The Abolitionist movement was spurred on by many ethical Christian men and women. As you note, they quite possibly would have had the same desire to see their fellow humans free and enjoying dignity even if they were not Christian. One does not need to be Christian to recognize that as long as there is one of us enslaved, no one is free.
Sadly many Christians have not seen the abolition of slavery as a noble cause.
One of our resident Christian posters recently noted that slavery as described in the Bible was a good thing and that after all, we're all slaves in one way or another. Interesting rationalizations, no?
This article provides another perspective on Christianity and the slave trade...
Christianity, Slavery, and Abolitionism
by Jon Nelson
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are Good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. -- 1 Peter 2: 18-20
The institution of slavery is one of the ugliest blots on humanity's record. The discomforting fact for religious believers is that the "particular institution" was morally acceptable during an earlier, more religious time in our nation's history. It is ironic that while many people look to the Bible for moral guidance, the "good book" does not contain a single condemnatory word about human bondage. This irony was not lost on Southern slave owners.
Many biblical stories also served as rationalizations for slavery. Probably the most commonly used story was that concerning the "curse of Canaan." In this story, Noah curses Ham's youngest son Canaan by making him a "servant of servants." This story became twisted and contorted over the centuries and ultimately served as the primary scriptural basis for anti-black racism. There was ample historical precedent for using the story as a religious apologetic for slavery, as white Christians had argued for centuries that the story meant that all primitive and backward black peoples were in fact descendents of Ham.
Some slave owners displayed even more appalling gall. Howell Cobb (1815-1868), one of the great "Georgia Triumvirate" (along with Robert Toombs and Jefferson Davis), stated in 1856 that the lot of the slave was due to his own "wickedness."
The greatest affront of all was seen in the avid effort made by certain southern Christians to convert their slaves. The irony of trying to make the slave embrace the religion that was being used to justify their enslavement seemed lost on them. Some of these white masters went so far as to insist that the only way for a slave to attain salvation was to remain enslaved.
However, many slave owners were skeptical about converting their human property. Nonetheless, it could be argued that the effort to convert blacks was one of the major reasons why there were so few insurrections in our history.
Christianity, like almost all religions, promotes a social hierarchical system which always favors the ruling elites. The fundamental cause of Christian racism can be glimpsed in the statement made by Congregationalist minister Josiah Strong who said that Christianity compels its followers to "fulfill the missionary charge of world evangelization." Thus there is an inherent thrust in Christianity that impels its adherents to go forth and convert others. Looked at from the perspective of those "others," this simply means that Christians are unable to leave anyone alone who does not happen to be Christian. Thus, there is a fundamental intolerance inherent in Christianity that makes its followers hostile to any system that differs from it. This attitude extended outward from the pulpit to the congregation, and from there to the basic infrastructure of American governmental policy.
Further proof of the racism inherent in Christianity can be seen in the simple fact that while may of the anti-slavery advocates spoke of love and compassion, this was meant only in the context of conversion. This point cannot be overemphasized. The slave (or anyone remaining unconverted) was not to receive love or any of the other supposed "Christian virtues" unless he or she first converted to Christianity. Thus, brotherhood to the Christians meant a brotherhood composed exclusively of fellow Christians. Those of differing faiths or of no faith were excluded and consequently subject to scorn, discrimination and social ostracism Shame was a powerful weapon in nineteenth-century America.
The pro-Christian bias that mars so many of our history texts today can be seen in the way the abolitionist movement is treated. The Second Great Awakening, beginning around 1800, is usually cited as an important causative factor in the abolitionist movement that followed. However, this is revisionist history. The implication here is that Christianity was at the heart of the movement to free the slaves. Nothing could be further from the truth. The eradication of human bondage is in fact a by-product of the Enlightenment and the Age of Rationalism, secular reactions against the 1500-year-old stranglehold Christianity had on the throat of Europe. This movement, which swept across Europe at the end of the seventeenth and into the eighteenth centuries, profoundly affected the men who founded this nation. They founded the first governmental system in history entirely free from the shackles of religion. Thus did the secular realm enter American lives. Only then did the abolitionists come on the scene. By no stretch of the imagination can religious impulses or devotion be cited as causative factors. If so, why didn't the abolitionist movement begin after the first Great Awakening? Did that movement's leaders, George Whitfield and Jonathan Edwards, cry out in indignation against human bondage? They did not. Was the anti-slavery banner raised in the colonies as a result of this re-awakening of Christian sentiment? IT was not. Slavery was not eliminated in this country until secularism had attained an ideological foothold. Certainly, many of the leaders of the abolitionist movement were religious. But, although they most likely were not aware of it, they were acting on humanistic, rather than religious impulses.
Now that the blight of slavery has been removed, or at least ameliorated from human society, the church predictably steps in and takes the credit. In the righteous tones of the morally duplicitous, they claim that their faith was the motivating factor, that the slave owners weren't "real" Christians, that the entire history of slavery only proves their contention that humans are inherently evil. Their unquestioning flocks, already convinced of Christianity's merits, nod their heads in obsequious agreement.
There is nothing in the Bible (or, for that matter, in any other "holy" writings) that calls for the downtrodden to rise up and free themselves. Except perhaps for a few recalcitrant southerners, Americans today view slavery as a most grievous wrong. Unfortunately, few of them recognize that the Bible which they revere is at best ambiguous and at worst openly supportive of the institution. On this most basic moral question, the Bible is useless as a moral guide. And if it fails us here, why should we trust it in anything else?
There is much talk these days in Christian circles about the need to return to "traditional values." These people do not need to return to morality, but to discover it.
REFERENCES:
1) The Arrogance of Faith by Forrest G. Wood. Published by Alfred A. Knopf, 1990.
2) The Peculiar Institution by Kenneth M. Stampp. Published by Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc, New York, 1956.
3) Christianity and Slavery by Joseph McCabe. Published by E. Haldeman Julius, 1927.
4) Lay My Burden Down by B.A. Botkin. Published by the University of Chicago Press, 1993.
5) Slavery: A World History by Milton Meltzer. Published by Da Capo Press, New York 1993.
6) Religion in Sociological Perspective by Keith A Roberts. Published by Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995.
7) The Road to Haper's Ferry by J.C. Furnas. Published by William Sloane Associates, 1959.
