Southern Chattel Slavery is Not That Complicated
Twenty-four years ago, Douglas Wilson and Steve Wilkins published Southern Slavery, as it was (SSAIW). Despite this bit of trivia, Douglas Wilson still does not understand the problem with southern slavery.
Earlier today, Douglas Wilson posted yet another explanation of his views on slavery. This blog post was brought about by a quotation from SSAIW being circulated across the internet. In this explanation, Wilson is clear that he places the quotation in his “retraction” category. What is less clear is why he is retracting the quotation or if the quotation is being retracted at all. This is the quotation in question.
“Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its predominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on ‘civil rights’ propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. Slave life was to [the slaves] a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes and good medical care. In spite of the evils contained in the system, we cannot overlook the benefits of slavery for both blacks and whites . . . Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since.”
Now, Wilson has tagged his recent article with his “retraction” tag. It is unclear why, but the blog tag is there, so I think that is supposed to make the book off-limits. I think. It is very vague. But I digress.
To avoid any supposed unfairness of quoting old books, I will quote this recent article, just to play it safe. Is that fair?
One could get nitpicky and deconstruct every last line, and one could also get into a citation war trying to show anecdotally one point or another. Instead, I will try to be brief and to the point of this particular article. Other issues can be handled in different places without making it about Douglas Wilson.
What should be understood clearly, and what Douglas Wilson has made very unclear, is the distinction between the institution of southern slavery itself and abuses within that system. So, let me be clear.
The problem with southern slavery is not that the system was abused.
The problem with southern slavery is not that there were some abuses integrated into the system.
The problem was that the system itself was abusive.
Before Douglas Wilson accuses me of denying the inerrancy of scripture, understand that I am talking about southern American slavery. I am not talking about the Old Covenant theonomic form of indentured servitude. I am not talking about the enslaving of people from the neighboring pagan nations of ancient Israel. I’m talking about the slavery defended and supported by the likes of Dabney and Thornwell, not Moses. Too often, when the topic of southern chattel slavery is brought up, its defenders like to defend Moses instead of southern chattel slavery. Jordan Wilson (no relation) explains this typical and fallacious motte and bailey distraction here.
[Speaking of inerrancy, affections, no matter how sincere, are not our standard of justice and truth. No list of anecdotal quotations from relatively gently treated house slaves changes God’s Word.]
So, when Wilson wants to make his condemnations, what we see is that his denunciations are of what he calls “abuses” within the institution and system of slavery. What he does not do is condemn southern slavery as southern slavery. He has done this throughout his career, but let us focus a bit on this most recent “retraction” article. I pray and hope that the article from this morning is up to date enough to be a fair indicator of Douglas Wilson’s views on slavery.
“I would content myself with saying that there were “many” horrific abuses, and that there were “many” situations that were characterized by benevolent masters, and leave it at that.
One thing the booklet was clear about was that appalling behavior should be treated by everyone as appalling behavior. And so those who believe that Steve and I were defending cruelty as though it were kindness are people who are selling something.”
What is not cruel and appalling? What is not seen as abusive?
Southern chattel slavery.
Wilson is quick to condemn the idea of appalling cruelty but fails to see the appalling cruelty intrinsic in dehumanizing image-bearers of God and treating them like cattle.
Next, Douglas brings up the topic of abortion but miserably fumbles the issue.
“A modern point of comparison would be America’s complicity in the abortion carnage. On account of the millions of lives lost, we are most worthy of the judgment of God. God could rain down fire on all of us, and it would be richly deserved. It would be appropriate for subsequent historians to examine how many Americans opposed abortion, and who loved and cared for their own children. But it would not be appropriate for them to do so in a way as to make it seem that the judgment itself was unjust.”.
First, there are a few points of agreement. Abortion is an apt modern comparison, and God would indeed be righteous to judge us severely and with fire. Do not be mistaken, though, Douglas Wilson is not comparing abortion to slavery. Instead, he is comparing abortion to “abusive” slavers. In this narrative, “benevolent” slaveholders are those who care for and love their children. Wilson’s comparison does not make the obvious comparison that abolitionists of abortion make (comparing the different types of dehumanization) but instead reinforces the idea that slavery was a paternal and loving relationship. In short, this comparison only reinforces the same concepts found in the notorious beforementioned quotation. If we were to rightly apply the abortion comparison, Douglas Wilson’s view on slavery would be compared to allowing abortion as long as you have feelings of affection to the preborn human you’re dehumanizing and subsequently ripping into pieces. But hey, as long as you have tender and warm feelings about the supposedly less-than-human corpse, is it really abuse? With these views on slavery and abortion, it is not too surprising that Wilson has taken issue with abortion abolitionism and debated me on the subject.
Why is it important to denounce the whole system and not just the slavemasters who beat slaves, raped slaves, split up slave families, etc.?
Why is this not as simple as “how did they treat their slaves?”
Southern chattel slavery was built on three pillars: dehumanizing racism, manstealing, and perpetual generational sin. Without these pillars, the institution would have collapsed.
It is not an accident of history that Africans were enslaved in the American South. There were “blood laws” on the books making southern slavery an explicitly Darwinianist and dehumanizingly racist endeavor. Old Covenant slavery was never based on ethnicity. Southern slavery was.
Even in Dabney’s defense of Virginia, you see that the slave apologists were fully aware that the slaves were kidnapped men, women, and children. Even the slavery apologists knew and confessed that their “property” was “stolen property.” Further, for those that justify keeping inherited slaves, inherited men and women who were stolen are still men or women who were stolen. Inherited stolen property doesn’t magically become non-stolen.
The Biblical prohibition of permanent slavery of those in the Covenant was purposely neglected in the South. This is not just anecdotal, but some states even had laws against giving slaves communion or teaching them scripture. If they were taught scripture, they were taught a highly edited version designed to make the slaves more passive and submissive.
Some slaveowners in the South broke those regulations and prided themselves in teaching their slaves some Bible verses. I’ll certainly admit this, however, they also never followed the Jubilee Year principle and never freed their slaves. The slaves were permanently enslaved, as were their children. That is not Levitical Law or Levitical slavery; this is pagan slavery.
The simple answer is that the system as a whole should be denounced because vicious beatings, rape, and murder were not rare exceptions to the rule, but were allowed by the rule. Laws protecting the life and health of slaves were either extremely flimsy, ignored, or in some states, nonexistent.
Is a system that intrinsically dehumanizes image-bearers of God as property in need of any further discussion?
This could be a much longer list, and many of these bullet points deserve their own chapters as opposed to just a bullet point. But I think this can be made to be far more complicated than it really is. The slave trade and slaveholding in America were as wicked as the sex slave trade today. To participate was sin. Lest this be contested as “non-Reformed” or a novel idea in Conservative Christianity, I stand with the American Presbyterian Covenanters who excommunicated all slaveholders.
Historical southern slavery indeed has some artificial and shallow similarities with Biblical slavery. No dispute there; after all, they are both often just called “slavery” with no qualification. But, brothers and sisters, do not be confused; they are not in the same category, even broadly speaking. Southern slavery, as it actually was, has as much to do with Biblical slavery as a righteous Leviticus 24:17 death penalty has to do with a thug murdering a woman in a random back alley. They are both a form of “killing,” but one is justice and leads to redemption, while the other is lawless, evil, and pure destruction.
Redemption, ethical reformation, and spiritual freedom was the aim of Biblical servitude. Southern slavery only ever had one aim: the exploitive economic gain of masters.
What is the problem with southern chattel slavery? It was dehumanizing chattel slavery. It’s not complicated.
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” - Exodus 21:16
“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” - 1 Timothy 1:8-11
This is, admittedly, a quickly written article with no historical citations. Be sure to check the below related articles on the same subject, and especially read Dr. Joel McDurmon’s The Problem of Slavery in Christian America.