American slavery is a staple of American historiography and continues to provoke strong emotions although the “peculiar institution” has been abolished for a century and a half. The passion surrounding this topic is not matched in comparable studies on Rome, Persia, the Mayans or European serfdom. The primary reason for this phenomenon is that American slavery was a shocking contradiction of the political values espoused by the young republic. This hypocrisy was more poignant because 19th century Americans championed their nation as the bastion of Christian virtue. Slavery in America was always a contentious issue and the focus of debates was the essential question: is slavery compatible with a Christian society? Reflecting the nation’s strong Christian heritage, relevant primary sources abound in denouncing and defending the institution along Christian principles. William Hague’s work, Christianity and Slavery: A Review of Doctors Fuller and Wayland, on Domestic Slavery is a first-rate example and provides a fascinating insight into how American Christians debated the morality of slavery prior to the Civil War.[1]
American culture from the 17th to the 20th century was thoroughly Christian in that no other system of thought held as much influence in society. As a worldview, Christianity held sway over Americans and provided the moral framework for the nation even if individuals debated or rejected specific aspects of it. While the nation in the early 19th century officially tolerated slavery, citizens relentlessly debated the issue along Christian grounds. Economic interests and racial integration were key elements in the discussions, but the overriding concern was the moral conundrum. In an enlightened Christian republic, citizens espoused that “all men were created equal” and were to “love their neighbors as themselves.”[2] As such, slavery was contradiction and dilemma that demanded resolution.
In the 1840s, Richard Fuller of South Carolina and Francis Wayland of Rhode Island engaged in a correspondence debating the morality of slavery as Christian ministers. Both men held doctorates of divinity and both were widely recognized as leaders in the Baptist church. Their letters were collected and published as work demonstrating the interest that Americans had on this issue and the religious aspects. Far from benignly accepting slavery, large numbers of American Christians were deeply troubled by its practice because of their faith. Many of these Americans had never met a slave or a freedman, but the idea that such a system existed in God’s chosen nation was reprehensible to them.
William Hague found the contradiction intolerable and was even more disturbed that a minister of the Gospel (Fuller) would argue in favor of slavery using Biblical principles. Although a self-professed admirer of Wayland, Hague felt that his arguments fell short in refuting Fuller and that he conceded some serious issues which strengthened Fuller’s position.[3] Moreover, Wayland often used secular philosophy effectively but was less forceful when expressing Christ’s teaching according to Hague. He argued that Christians should be more swayed by the words of Jesus than by man.[4] To this end, Hague sought to rectify these shortcomings and wrote a lengthy review with the endorsement of a committee of Boston churchmen.
Hague’s conclusion that slavery and Christianity were incompatible was built on several solid theses. Frequently and liberally, Hague utilized both examples and principles from the Old and New Testament copiously in his response. A modern scholar, unacquainted with the Bible, might find his arguments difficult to follow for he wrote to a 19th century audience who were deeply familiar with Biblical illustrations and precepts. Hague strongly objected to Fuller’s chief arguments that the Bible did not expressly forbid slavery and that slavery if conducted humanly was acceptable to Christians.[5] Moreover, Hague argued that Wayland failed to sufficiently address Fuller’s central thesis and to demonstrate the inherent flaw in his reasoning.
For example, Fuller claimed that Roman law permitted slavery and the New Testament did not specifically refute it (a common argument among slave holders.)[6] Hague retorted that the New Testament did not categorically refute other sins too such as gladiatorial combats, the Hindu caste system, or aggressive war; Biblical silence on a point does not necessarily imply consent. In fact, the Christian adherence to a broader moral principle (love your neighbor) negated the need for specificity on every behavior. Hague also argued that Christians in the first century had “risen above the level of the Roman law to a higher moral realm” so that what was acceptable to Romans was not acceptable to Christ and his church.[7]
Moreover, Hague effectively showed that the Jewish law of Moses was more applicable to first century Christians in discerning their views than Roman laws. To that end, Jewish law stipulated a liberation of slaves (bondsmen) every 7 years. Utilizing the Old Testament, Hague argued that slavery in the Jewish culture was never meant to be a permanent institution based on race. The concept of inherited servitude was specifically forbidden in Jewish law because every man was viewed as an individual which Hague linked to the American concepts of personhood. By the time of Christ, slavery had virtually vanished from Jewish society except as imposed by the unrighteous, “gentile”, Romans. First century Jewish Christians already widely held slavery to be immoral and would not have needed to elaborate on the point according to Hague.[8]
Hague pursued other lines of reasoning such as the brotherhood of humanity and that God is the father of all flesh. As such, Hague’s arguments appeal to principles that are only relevant in a Judeo-Christian context which reflected the central role of Christianity in American culture. More than anything else, American abolitionists framed their objections in a Christian worldview which was readily comprehended by the nation.
[1] William Hague Christianity and Slavery: A Review of Doctors Fuller and Wayland, on Domestic Slavery (Boston: Gould, Kendall & Lincoln, 1847), https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/CY0108029792/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=SABN&xid=4bd3d43f. [2] Hague, Christianity and Slavery, 34 – 35. [3] Ibid., 4. [4] Ibid., 17 - 18. [5] Ibid., 10 - 11. [6] Ibid., 12. [7] Ibid., 21. [8] Ibid., 15 – 16, 23.
Comments