Rhodes Davis

I. Professor Jerome A. Ennels

II. HIS 1111

III. May 3, 2002

IV. Clergy Attitudes towards Slavery in the Nineteenth Century

A. Before the Civil War, the religious landscape was quite fragmented. Disagreements within the major denominations, primarily over slavery, created regional divisions that disrupted the unity of the nation. Although slavery was an issue discussed since the end of the Revolution, from the end of the eighteenth century until the early part of the nineteenth century, these divisions did not exist. This paper will examine the clergy views of the major denominations regarding slavery, the gradual shift to extreme positions, and the intensity of disagreement on the eve of the Civil War.

B. In the mid-nineteenth century, the northern religious environment, though containing diverse theological ideas, tended to support slavery (Mc Kivigan and Snay 7). After the Revolution, some denominations, influenced by the Enlightenment, condemned slaveholding but instead of disciplining slaveholding members, focused on slave missions and colonization (Mc Kivigan and Snay 7). Many church leaders feared that strong opposition to slavery—a Southern issue that only indirectly affected them—might drive away southern members and create unnecessary division (Mc Kivigan and Snay 9)

V. In the South, there was some antislavery sentiment in the early part of the nineteenth century. Often slavery was opposed as an idea but most churches tempered their arguments for fear of driving off prospective members (Bailey 55).

VI. In the North and the South, clergy supporting or opposing slavery attempted to defend their positions with the Bible. Abraham Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural Address, noted that North and South ” read the same Bible” (Noll 43). The difference was the manner of interpretation and application.

VII. In the North and the South, there were four primary positions on slavery: proslavery, moderate antislavery, abolition, and avoidance. The abolition position in the North and the proslavery position in the South were extremes that ultimately led to division in the denominations and the nation itself. Clergy in both the North and the South shared the moderate antislavery position that generally opposed the extremes of the abolitionists and the abuses of the slave system. Some clergy avoided the discussion of slavery as much as possible considering it a secular matter better suited for the political arena than the pulpit.

VIII. Slavery defenders, in response to more vigorous abolitionist arguments in the 1830’s, began to formulate Biblical arguments to uphold the practice of slavery. Some clergy, like Samuel Dunwoody, a Methodist minister, argued that the Negro race was ” condemned to an existence of slavery” according to the Bible (Chesebrough 10). Thomas and Alexander Campbell, leaders in the Disciples of Christ movement, were two of many preachers from different religious backgrounds who argued that Negroes were descendants of Ham who suffered slavery under the descendants of Japheth and Shem as punishment for his sin (West ” Order” 329, Campbell ” Views” 3). In an extreme argument, J. C. Postell argued that slavery was the Lord’s way to bring the Negroes from the idolatry, ignorance, and cannibalism of Africa to those who would teach them the gospel. (Birney 18).

IX. More rational defenses of slavery were based on arguments from the Old and New Testaments. From the Old Testament, proslavery clergy noted that the Jewish patriarchs like Abraham, owned slaves and that the Law of Moses did not condemn slavery (Noll 46). From the New Testament, the clergy argued that neither Christ nor the apostles condemned slavery and, in fact, they received slaveholders, like Philemon, in the church and taught the proper relationship between masters and slaves (Mc Kivigan and Snay 16). Since the Bible did not condemn slaveholders, proslavery advocates taught that to expel slaveholders from the membership would be unscriptural (Davis 222).

X. The proslavery clergy not only defended the peculiar institution, many participated in it as well. An abolitionist tract criticizing American churches for not condemning slavery noted that some churches actually owned slaves (Birney 7). Baptist and Methodist ministers in Virginia held slaves in proportion to the rest of the population (Schweiger 300). Some clergy, like Jeremiah Jeter, a Baptist minister, became slaveholders reluctantly and desired to manumit their slaves but felt that it would be impractical (Scweiger 296). That some clergy slaveholders considered instant emancipation an injustice to the slave will be discussed with the moderate antislavery argument.

XI. Some proslavery advocates defended the institution by uniting it with another important institution, the family. James Smylie, a Presbyterian minister and one of the largest slaveholders in Amite County Mississippi, argued that the slaves were, with the wife and children, part of the family under the patriarchal rule of the white male father (Sparks 283). These ” father-masters” were to regulate their households according to the principles of Christianity and would answer to God for their treatment of all family members, including the slaves, and would be punished by God if they failed to teach their slaves the way of salvation (Ambrose 50-51).

XII. Although the institution of slavery was approved, abuses were not. Rev. W.G. Brownlow, an advocate of slavery, acknowledged the evils of the African slave trade, though he thought reports of abuse were exaggerated by abolitionists (Lippincott 30). Those who promoted slavery as part of the family relationship acknowledged the master’s right to chastise his slaves and, done justly, would teach obedience (Ambrose 51). Thomas Campbell wrote that a master must, under the laws of God and nature, give his slaves adequate ” food, raiment, and rest; with the enjoyment of the natural family relations of husband and wife, of parents and children; with a religious education…” (Campbell ” Reply” 199).

XIII. The abolitionist position, the other extreme of the slavery issue, demanded an immediate emancipation of the slaves. Religious abolitionists wanted churches to condemn slavery as a sin and withdraw fellowship from slaveholders; as they would discipline members involved in drunkenness, adultery, and other sins (Birney 1). Although there were discussions regarding the morality of slavery in the early nineteenth century, by 1830 the abolitionists were emphatically decrying slavery as ” a sin—always, everywhere, and only a sin.” (Mc Kivigan 20).

XIV. Since the North and the South shared the same hermeneutic, the advocates of slavery had to answer the scriptural arguments of the proslavery clergy. James Stirling, a British citizen who published a record of his journeys in the South, recognized the logic and ” irresistible proofs” of the proslavery position: “[Albert Bledsoe’s] Scriptural argument in favour of slavery; and here, I must confess that, as against his opponents, the orthodox Abolitionists, he is perfectly triumphant.” (Noll 46)

XV. As Noll observed, there were three basic abolitionist responses to the Scriptural arguments of the proslavery advocates. The first response was to agree with the proslavery arguments but then abandon the Bible as a rule for living in its strict sense (Noll 43). William Lloyd Garrison best illustrates this position. Garrison, an editor who zealously opposed the orthodox religious views that supported slavery and denounced the churches, probably had a minimal effect on denominational attitudes (Mc Kivigan 15). Presbyterians Robert Breckenridge and Charles Hodge took a milder approach. They conceded the Biblical argument to the proslavery advocates, but argued that the Bible should not to be taken literally but should be interpreted in the context of the social conditions of society and the broader principles of the Scriptures themselves (Noll 60).

XVI. A second response was to acknowledge the proslavery position as Biblical but argue that the slavery in the United States did not correspond to the slavery addressed in the Bible. However, Noll states that the arguments were hard to follow and so the position did not have many adherents (44).

XVII. A third response, the most popular, was to acknowledge the Bible regulation of slavery in the New Testament but appeal to a ” higher law” that was opposed to the idea of slavery (Noll 44). This contrast with the ” spirit” and the ” letter” of the Bible took on many forms.

XVIII. Rev. Abram Pryne, in a debate with proslavery advocate Rev. Brownlow, argued that God created man with a law of self-ownership as part of his nature and that the Bible, and even the Declaration of Independence, acknowledged it (Brownlow and Pryne 63-66). Ezekiel Cooper, a Methodist answered proslavery arguments with ” broad general principles of justice” and the benevolent nature of Christianity. He wrote about the inconsistency of the arguments for slavery: ” many who are free men in principle, have declared for, and supported the cause of liberty and still persist in holding their fellow creatures in bondage” (Mathews 15). The proslavery advocates pointed out the hypocrisy of the Northerners who ” buy the bloodstained cotton in quantity so immense, that we have run up the price of slaves to be more than a thousand dollars. Ye denounce slavery; then ye bid it live and not die,—in that ye buy sugar, rice, tobacco, and above all, cotton” (Crowther 336)

XIX. Some writers went so far as to put words in Jesus’ mouth. Carter Tarrant, a Baptist clergyman, argued that Jesus’ teaching implied that slavery was wrong and he could not have condemned all of the evils of the world by name (Bailey 106). Such attempts to explain away the meaning of Scripture, or ignore it in deference to a ” higher law,” was a testimony to the strength of the proslavery logic and exegetical correctness of their arguments.

XX. Between the extremes of abolition and proslavery was the moderate antislavery position. These moderates objected to the fanatical abolitionists yet did not embrace the American slavery system. Moderate antislavery advocates objected to the abolitionist attacks on the character of slaveholders and the demand to excommunicate slaveholders from churches (Mc Kivigan and Snay 8). Moderates considered the immediate abolition view to be unnecessarily divisive and believed that slow steps toward emancipation would build religious unity between the North and the South and would allow time for the Southerners to end slavery willingly (Davis 221).

XXI. Moderates objected to the abuses of the slave system yet realized that immediate emancipation might be worse for the slave. For example, some state laws prohibited slaves from learning how to read or write (Birney 6). Lack of education would be a hindrance for a free black man. In his debate with an abolitionist, W. G. Brownlow argued:

XXII. ” In the free states the black man can not get into an omnibus, cannot enter a bar-room frequented by whites, nor a church, nor a theater; nor can he enter the cabin of a steamboat. Industry is closed to them and they are forced to live as servants in hotels” and take other menial jobs. ” For Colored People” signs segregated the white and black people in the free city of Philadelphia. Because of discrimination, he argued, many slaves had voluntarily returned to slavery when they could not subsist in the free states (Brownlow and Pryne 44-45, 96-97).

XXIII. Gradual emancipation proponents wanted time to prepare slaves for freedom (Mathews 119).

XXIV. In addition to gradual emancipation, moderates favored colonization for free blacks. Thomas Jefferson supported emancipation of the slaves but coupled with deportation since ” the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government” (Auping 27). Some supported colonization because they feared the blurring of class distinctions between black and white people that might lead to intermarriage between the races (Bailey 137). This uncomfortable racism was used by Brownlow in his debate with Abram Pryne. When Pryne argued the equality of the races and the superior intellect of black men, such as Frederick Douglass, Brownlow challenged Pryne to introduce black men into the social circles he wished to force on the South and marry his daughters to them (Brownlow and Pryne 216-217).

XXV. Moderate antislavery advocates were often involved with mission work to teach the gospel to the slaves. Methodists were particularly effective in teaching slaves because their neutral stance kept them in good relations with the slaveholders without alienating the slaves (Owen 118-120). In the late 1830’s, Alexander Campbell encouraged the Disciples of Christ to send missions to the slaves and reprimand masters who neglected their patriarchal duties (Bailey 175). The missions allowed denominations to preach on the Bible approval of slavery while consoling themselves with the spiritual good they were accomplishing for the slaves.

XXVI. The American Colonization Society (ACS), organized in 1816, was a multi-denominational effort to establish a colony in Liberia, Africa and settle it with freed slaves. Colonization provided a means for antislavery supporters to encourage gradual emancipation and hope for a better quality of life for the freed blacks and the opportunity to evangelize Africa (Sparks 280, Mc Kivigan 34). The moderates welcomed colonization because it was considered a neutral stance (Bailey 142). Colonization efforts initially had strong financial support but the free black’s rejection of the colonization efforts and opposition by the abolitionists who criticized the ACS for not endorsing emancipation or denouncing slaveholders led to its downfall (Mc Kivigan 34). When the colonization efforts failed in 1840, more antislavery supporters joined the abolitionists and the controversy over slavery intensified (Sparks 286). As the moderate position declined, Southern churches began to silence the antislavery arguments. Anthony Bewley, a moderate Methodist minister, was tried by a vigilance committee in Texas in 1860 for plotting a slave insurrection and, though the evidence was scant, he was hanged (Chesebrough 34-35). The South became a dangerous place to live. ” Either a person with antislavery convictions had to be quiet about his convictions or he had to move North” (Cheseborough 33). On the eve of the Civil War, the moderate position had lost ground and the religious landscape was polarized.

XXVII. A final position on slavery was avoidance. Some churches sought to avoid discussion of the topic, indefinitely if possible. Alexander Campbell, one of the founders of the Disciples of Christ movement, conceded the Biblical approval and regulation of slavery, but made no claim to be an abolitionist or advocate of slavery; he preached the responsibilities of Christians who find themselves in the master or slave relationship. He stressed that slavery was a matter of opinion, not faith, and so should be kept as an individual matter only (Hailey 179-180). Another influential preacher and editor in the Christian Churches was Benjamin Franklin. He wanted the question kept out of the pulpits and journals, yet by the 1850’s ” slavery agitation touched every journal, every institution, and virtually every leader in the church” (West ” Franklin” 128). In the early nineteenth century, many Southern clergymen advocated silence on the slavery issue and affirmed that it was a political matter, not religious—the ” spirituality of the church” position (Cheseborough 7). The Nat Turner Rebellion and the increased agitation of the abolitionists eliminated this position in many of the denominations as the clergy took a more vocal proslavery stance (Cheseborough 8).

XXVIII. The clergy dissent in the middle of the nineteenth century, shortly before the war, led to schisms in the major denominations over slavery. The Presbyterian denomination split in 1837 between Old School and New School factions. Slavery was a factor since Southerners, who favored the Old School, believed the New School had too much abolitionist activity (Cheseborough 3-4).

XXIX. The Methodist denomination, from its organization in America in 1784, advocated an antislavery policy based on the teachings of John Wesley. However, the law was never enforced and so slavery was considered a local issue (Cheseborough 4). In 1843, many antislavery Methodists withdrew from the denomination to form the Wesleyan Methodist Church (Cheseborough 4). A year later, when Bishop James O. Andrew, who became a slaveholder through marriage, was forced to resign his position, the Southern Methodists withdrew from the denomination and formed the Methodist Episcopal Church (Sparks 287, Mathews 246-268).

XXX. The Baptists, though independent churches, worked together as a denomination through benevolence and missionary societies. The Baptist denomination split in 1845 when northern Baptists objected to the appointment of slaveholding missionaries. Alabama Baptists asked the Foreign Mission Board if a slaveholder could be appointed as a missionary. When the board said that it would not appoint a slaveholder as a missionary, radical southerners formed the Southern Baptist Convention and dissolved connections with the denominational societies (Cheseborough 4, Sparks 287-288).

XXXI. As the moderate policies of gradual emancipation and colonization failed, resulting in division, moderate clergymen eventually adopted more extreme positions. This polarization of the fractured religious landscape led to the political division of the country that culminated in the Civil War (Cheseborough 2-3).

XXXII. Throughout the period, the clergy often were at odds with other clergy and sometimes themselves regarding the peculiar institution. Some Southern clergymen were discouraged and even angered when they saw the poor condition of the slaves, abusive masters, and the lack of education among the slave populations yet had to acknowledge the Scriptural support of slavery. For other Southern clergymen, slavery was simply a part of society that had always existed in America and so should be regulated according to Bible principles. The Northern proslavery support, grounded in a respect for their Southern brethren and the impropriety of speaking against an institution that did not directly affect them, gradually adopted more vocal antislavery positions. With the secession of the Southern states, many of the antislavery positions of northern clergymen were reflections of anti-southern sentiment (Mc Kivigan and Snay 14). The failure of clergymen to agree on a Biblically supported position regarding slavery divided the denominations and, ultimately, the nation.

XXXIII. Works Cited:

XXXIV. Primary Sources

XXXV. Birney, James Gillespie. The American Churches: The Bulwarks of American Slavery. 1842. New York: Arno Press, 1969.

XXXVI. Brownlow, Rev. W.G. and Rev. A. Pryne. Ought American Slavery to be Perpetuated? A Debate Between Rev. W.G. Brownlow and Rev. A. Pryne. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1858.

XXXVII. Campbell, Thomas. ” Elder Thomas Campbell’s Views of Slavery.” Millennial Harbinger. Vol. II No. I. January, 1845. 7 pages. 26 April 2002 http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/tcampbell/mh/ETCVOS.HTM

XXXVIII. Campbell, Thomas. ” Reply to’A Disciple’on the Subject of Slavery.” Millennial Harbinger. Vol. V No. II. May, 1845. 5 pages. 26 April 2002 http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/tcampbell/mh/RADSOS.HTM

XXXIX. Works Cited:

XXXX. Secondary Sources

XXXXI. Ambrose, Douglas. ” Of Stations and Relations.” Religion and the Antebellum Debate over Slavery. Ed. John R. Mckivigan and Mitchell Snay. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1998.

XXXXII. Auping, John A. Religion and Social Justice. Mexico: Biblioteca Francisco Xavier Clavigero Centro de Informacion Academica, 1994.

XXXXIII. Bailey, David T. Shadow on the Church. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1985.

XXXXIV. Chesebrough, David B. Clergy Dissent in the Old South, 1830-1865. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1996.

XXXXV. Crowther, Edward R.. ” Religion Has Something…to Do with Politics.” Religion and the Antebellum Debate over Slavery. Ed. John R. Mckivigan and Mitchell Snay. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1998.

XXXXVI. Davis, Hugh. ” Bacon, the Congregational Church, and Slavery.” Religion and the Antebellum Debate over Slavery. Ed. John R. Mckivigan and Mitchell Snay. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1998.

XXXXVII. Hailey, Homer. Attitudes and Consequences in the Restoration Movement. Bowling Green, Kentucky: Guardian of Truth Foundation Publications, 1975.

XXXXVIII. Knoll, Mark A. ” The Bible and Slavery.” Religion and the American Civil War. Ed. Randall M. Miller, et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

XXXXIX. Mathews, Donald G. Slavery and Methodism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1965.

XXXXX. Mc Kivigan, John R. The War Against Proslavery Religion. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1984.

XXXXXI. Mc Kivigan, John R.and Mitchell Snay. ” Introduction: Religion and the Problem of Slavery in Antebellum America.” Religion and the Antebellum Debate over Slavery. Ed. John R. Mckivigan and Mitchell Snay. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1998.

XXXXXII. Owen, Christopher H.. ” To Keep the Way Open for Methodism.” Religion and the Antebellum Debate over Slavery. Ed. John R. Mckivigan and Mitchell Snay. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1998.

XXXXXIII. Schweiger, Beth Barton. ” The Restructuring of Southern Religion” Religion and the Antebellum Debate over Slavery. Ed. John R. Mckivigan and Mitchell Snay. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1998.

XXXXXIV. Sparks, Randy J. ” To Rend the Body of Christ.” Religion and the Antebellum Debate over Slavery. Ed. John R. Mckivigan and Mitchell Snay. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1998.

XXXXXV. West, Earl Irvin. The Search for the Ancient Order. Vol. 1. Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate Company, 1974.

XXXXXVI. ---. Elder Ben Franklin: Eye of the Storm. Germantown, Tennessee: Religious Book Service, 1984.