Kenneth Talbot: Modern Apostle of Confederate Slavery and Racism
“There is really no ground upon which we can say that
[slavery] is a moral issue that plagued the nation”
—Kenneth G. Talbot
Introduction
This essay will prove earlier claims regarding the fact that Rev. Kenneth G. Talbot was a Lost Cause sympathizer and partisan of the Old South’s views of slavery. It goes way beyond that, in fact. The details of what follows are quite gross. If you are triggered by abusive or irresponsible comments about racial slavery or degrading aspects of its history in America, I alert you to be careful about reading some of what follows.
Talbot passed away before I could complete this compilation. His student, Jason Bradfield, now successor as interim president at Talbot’s institution, criticized me recently for misrepresenting Talbot’s views regarding the Old South, slavery and race. (My original comments are included here.)
In doing so, Jason presented a highly sanitized version of Talbot’s views:
It’s true that Dr. T did not buy the official US government's version of the so-called “Civil War.” You know, the version that tells you that everyone in the South was evil and hated Africans, and everyone in the North loved the Africans so much that they were willing to sacrifice their lives for their freedom to live peaceably and equally among them.
No one actually teaches that view, by the way, and it is certainly not the “official” US government’s view. Jason proceeds,
And why did Dr. T not buy that version? It's not because he was a racist. . . . It was for the simple reason that Abraham Lincoln gave for the war; to preserve the Union irrespective of slavery.
You can judge for yourself just how much of a diversion from the whole truth this is from what follows below. In short, my assessment is that this is the worst whitewashing of someone’s views I’ve ever seen.
I have wanted to publish this for some time. Not only are Talbot’s views not merely Lincoln’s concern for union, some of Talbot’s views repeat the racist propaganda as extreme as that in the 1915 movie, The Birth of a Nation.
Preliminary Notes
For those who don’t know, Rev. Dr. Kenneth G. Talbot was a prominent minister in the tiny Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA) and founder of the online Whitefield Seminary in Lakeland, Florida. The RPCGA is a micro-denomination within the ultra-conservative side-quest of Presbyterian splinter churches, formed from a break-off of a break-off from the PCA, which was itself a 1973 break-off from the PCUSA and already there included segregationists among its founders. Some of the hardest-core of the pro-Southern, Lost-Cause adherents flowed through these break-offs and landed in the RPCGA, with Kenneth G. Talbot as their fearless leader.
Talbot published his views on slavery and the South in a little-known 36-sermon series called The Rise & Fall of the U.S. Republic. The title mimics that of Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens’s tomes, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, written after the South’s failed secession, and to justify it, while trying to marginalize the root cause of slavery. Talbot does not reveal whether he consciously adapted this title or not, but he certainly never deviates from the script except when he adopts the later, and cruder, Lost Cause authors and says the quiet parts out loud.
About nine of these sermons, numbers 27–36, cover the Civil War era and Reconstruction. I have excerpted from several and try to note in parentheses the number of whatever lecture I quote where relevant.
I would also recommend downloading actual copies of the audio files in case they get pulled after this.
As you proceed, keep in mind that all of what follows was preached in church, from a modern pulpit, by a minister, as actual sermons expounding upon God’s Word, as God’s Truth, on the Lord’s Day.
Preaching Racist Propaganda as Truth from the Pulpit
Talbot, with excitement and passion in his voice, related propaganda straight from The Birth of a Nation about, for example, the Reconstruction-era state assemblies. This is a direct quotation:
After ten years of rule by the blacks and military law in the South. . . . each state was in debt over 17 million dollars. . . . Where did the money go? Well, you wouldn’t believe what was going on in our state houses. . . . The black congressmen and senators literally, they brought peanuts . . . right into the Congress! Shelled the peanuts and threw them on the floor. Brought in their prostitutes and openly had relationships in front of other men on the floor. Brought in tons of booze and whiskey and drank and fought and they had brawls and they spit all over the floors chewing tobacco.
Talbot preaches on to say that when whites took back control, they had to burn down the buildings because the filth left by black people was too bad to clean:
They literally had to almost burn down some of the state houses after ten years of Reconstruction because they said they were just so filthy and so destroyed there was nothing you could do with them. Most of them, if they didn’t burn them down, stripped them totally out and had to almost completely reconstruct them.
Talbot provides no sources for such claims, of course. I tracked some of them down. There was a popular and racist journalist, James Pike, writing racist propaganda columns at the time. He specifically opposed blacks in leadership positions because former slaves were “entirely without morale,” and claimed that even educated blacks lacked a “whole moral nature.” (Here and here are a couple articles on such historiography.)
But it gets worse.
Pike’s work was later visually caricatured in that racist 1915 movie that rebirthed the KKK in America, The Birth of a Nation (the scene is about three minutes long).
Later books capitalized on the movie to spread the same vile caricatures of blacks in the 1920s. Talbot could only have pulled his information from such books or articles.
Talbot repeats this propaganda directly: blacks during Reconstruction were “turned loose upon the people.” He preaches that while Northern newspapers reported the sufferings of the black population, he says, “In reality, the tragedies were not the blacks.”
No, he preaches, during Reconstruction, “the women, they couldn’t walk down the streets without walking in groups. So many of the white women had been raped by the black troops of the South.”
To be clear, Talbot did not relate these things in the way that a historian would present otherwise tasteless propaganda as artifacts of prejudice at the time, or for critique. He approvingly drew from them as his only sources for what he saw as the true version of what happened.
He even prefaced that sermon with a condemnation of the consensus versions of history he disagreed with, saying that controversy only exists because there is “revisionism” a lot of “uncertified history here.”
Imagine a modern preacher preaching racist propaganda from a pulpit on a Sunday morning, as if it were God’s own truth.
Southern Slavery Was Biblical, Abolition Was Rebellion As Witchcraft
Talbot maintained that, “It was not an unbiblical position to have slaves.” He added with rhetorical flourish: “It still is not an unbiblical position.” “To a great extent,” in fact, he said the South’s view of slavery was that of the Bible. (33)
Talbot consequently presented abolitionism as the arch enemy not only of the South during the 1800s, but of the whole American enterprise and God himself. He recited 1 Samuel 15:23 to call abolitionism “witchcraft” and “idolatry.” He preached, “It was a movement against constitutionalism. . . . The abolitionist movement and yea in its more radical form, the transcendentalist movement, were simply rebellions against the United States Constitution; against a just system of government.” (28)
Remember that phrase “just system of government.”
This “rebellion,” he said, “eventually led to the destruction of the United States.” Talbot lamented that, in his view, the abolitionist movement “changed” the American Constitution “into a democratic form of government.” (31)
This view simply parrots the elitist view of Southern Presbyterians like R. L. Dabney, whom Talbot admired and quoted, who openly said that the Declaration of Independence was wrong for including the phrase “all men are created equal.” They thought black people obviously were not!
Dred Scott was Right?
Along these lines, Talbot openly endorsed the Dred Scott decision as “the constitutional understanding of this issue.”
For those who do not recall, Dred Scott, was the 1857 decision that held that blacks were not citizens and were never intended to be citizens under the Constitution, and therefore had no Constitutional rights. It famously stated that blacks are “so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” and blacks could “justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery” for the white man’s benefit.
Talbot said this decision was “the constitutional understanding of this issue.” This is the “just system of government” against which Talbot thought abolitionism was in godless rebellion.
He praised the fact that Southerners stacked and controlled the Supreme Court for that historical moment, and said,
Even at the very door of a war between the states, civil war literally at the door of America, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of slave states and their rights to own property and to have their property returned to them if they had escaped to another state that did not practice slavery. As you can see, even the Supreme Court held to the constitutional understanding of this issue and enforced that issue even knowing the tensions and polarization that had already developed in the nation. (32)
The KKK as a Good and Fun Thing; Blacks are “Very Superstitious”
Another startling section of Talbot’s sermons is his version of the origins of the Ku Klux Klan. He preaches the niche propaganda that the Klan was merely a fun little social club of guys who wanted to “entertain their families” by “dressing up” and riding horses from home to home at night. It was just some entertainment to lift the spirits after the War.
But, you know, since the war had depleted actual “costumes,” these poor guys were reduced to using plain old sheets, in which they had to cut eye holes. And “Klan” just means “family,” see?
One night, while out riding, they just happened to overhear some carpetbaggers teaching blacks in a field how to persecute whites for revenge. These playful brothers just rode up closer, innocently, to hear what was going on.
Let Talbot take it from here:
The black community seeing these confederate riders, they look like ghosts. Of course, they were very superstitious. These are Africans and they’re already superstitious people. Here comes a bunch of confederate soldiers, they’re ghosts, and they’re riding and they’re coming to get us. And they scattered, they ran everywhere. And of course, you’re not going to get a bunch of white guys together, in sheets, riding through a field and people get scared and run from them, and not think that’s not fun. (36).
Talbot does not explain why he thought these “Africans” were “already superstitious people.” Their masters had allegedly trained them so well in the Bible (as Talbot claimed, see below), right? Why would they be “superstitious” if that were the case? Or for any other reason? And the slave trade had closed sixty years earlier, in 1808. Most former slaves in the 1870s, therefore, had been born in America, not Africa. They were Americans.
Nevertheless, in Talbot’s version, these playful KKK brothers realized that night that they had stumbled on a good way to keep the carpetbagger from “having these rallies.” It was fun, and kind of a way of, in Talbot’s words, of “solving some problems.”
Thus, the “fun” KKK was born. Let the good times roll!
Many historical howlers
Talbot punctuates his lecture series with various historical howlers, usually versions of common myths or half-truths perpetuated by Lost Cause apologists. These include such things as the claims that:
only 6 to 7 % of Americans owned slaves (so, see, it wasn’t such a big problem!)
the majority of Americans thought the institution was “biblical”
80 percent of Southerners were members of reformed churches (if this were ever true, it was only for a brief time in the earliest history of the colonies when the population numbered only a few thousands).
2/3 of the Union Army walked off the battlefield because of the Emancipation Proclamation (desertion rates dipped only moderately, then recovered, and were higher in the South generally)
The phrase “40 acres and a mule” derived from a promise the Union made to mercenaries because they could not get American soldiers to fight for them
slavery was going to die out on its own in about 20 years (utter nonsense; they were fighting to expand it, and the Confederate Constitution made provision to expand it indefinitely and keep it forever)
White women could not walk down the street in the South during Reconstruction because “black troops” had raped so many of them. (36)
Briefly, Talbot claimed that slavery was quickly going to die out, because “the industrial revolution eventually, with the cotton gin . . . will soon bring an end to the need for slaves.” The historical reality was that the cotton gin massively increased the demand for slaves in upland cotton production, spreading millions of slaves into Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas.
Likewise, Talbot claimed “Slavery was not as bad as people make it out to be in the North.” “Workloads were light.” And “slaves actually experienced a considerable measure of personal freedom.” Further, he hit all the classic “Lincoln was a racist” high notes.
He then added: “Go back and read Abraham Lincoln: every noted speech, he never speaks of Constitutionalism. He cannot, because it violates the very principles upon which he was moving forward.” A quick search of Lincoln’s collected works, however, reveals by my math a whopping 1,748 references to the Constitution and “Constitutional.” What Talbot really meant was that Lincoln did not share his Confederate view of “constitutionalism.”
Anyway, it is not my purpose here to refute each of these more common myths. It’s all nonsense and is readily and easily answered in many places. There are more important things here.
Myth: Most Slaveowners were Christians Who Taught Their Slaves to Read the Bible
Talbot portrays his alleged majority-Christian South as fostering “great relationships” between the slaves and “the godly men who led them,” because plantation owners “spent time teaching their slaves English so that they could read the bible and instruct them in the word of the living God.” (31)
Not just some time, mind you, “they spent an exorbitant amount of time teaching and training those men women and children, whom they owned their labor of, to read the word of the living God, to instruct them.” (31)
There were, however, very few such instances, very limited, and not unlikely only for publicity reasons, in an attempt to stave off abolitionist pressure. The few who tried to create publicity points with such discussions were drowned out by the political majority which swiftly outlawed teaching slaves to read (which had long been neglected in practice, not needing a statute, up to that point).
The few who “trained” their slaves in Bible did so orally by catechism and with selective passages, because if a slave could read the whole Bible, freely, these plantation owners feared they would read passages about liberty and freedom and get inspired to get themselves some of it. Worse, a slave trained to read might happen upon abolitionist literature which flooded the South after 1830.
Talbot vastly overgeneralized modern historians for his point. He says,
many of the men who wrote back during the war to their wives "are you teaching the slaves from the scripture? Has brother so and so" (he names the slaves by name) "is he working with the people, are you continuing to catechize them and train them how important it is for them to know the gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ?" That was the attitude of most of the individuals in the south who owned slaves.
The reference here is from the work of historian James MacPherson, who studied 25,000 letters of Civil War soldiers on both sides. There were in no way “many” who did this. Only a tiny handful out of that number that contain such a message (tiny as in maybe single digits).
The vast majority of Confederate soldier letters do not even discuss slavery (Union letters do more often). For Talbot to use this to say this was the attitude of “most” slaveowners is radically irresponsible. There is no evidence anywhere that this was true, and plenty of evidence contrary to it.
Myth: Most Christians slaveholders worked hard to reunite slave families
Talbot claimed that a “great majority” of plantation owners worked to reunite slave families. There is scant evidence of such a thing.
He said, “One of the things that was so unique among the slave owners of the South was how much time they gave to reuniting families of slaves in order to make them happy and productive.” (32)
Again, “It was in the South a common practice for plantation owners . . . a great majority of the plantation owners, especially of those who were Christians, who would work toward the purchase or trade of slaves in order to reunite their families or their loved ones. It was just not uncommon.” (33)
Talbot’s benevolent slaveowners dedicated so “much time” to this, he said, disgusted at what Northern “traders” did in separating the families, because “they understood that these northern slave traders did not care. Profit was their motive.” (32)
The Southerners, Talbot said, exclaimed, “What an ungodly thing for those people to do!” (32)
Talbot’s problem is that the Southern plantation owners separated families, too, and rampantly. After the international trade closed, Virginia capitalized as the domestic trade center. The “traders” in fact were operations in the South and were well-respected businesses. Southerners sold off their slaves westward from Virginia and South Carolina to Alabama, Mississippi, etc., totaling some 875,000, indiscriminately breaking apart families as they went. The consensus estimate among scholars today is that a whopping half of these were broken apart from a spouse or parent/child in the process.
Southern apologists often cite the example of Nathan Bedford Forrest as reuniting slave family members; but like Talbot does in his sermon, they almost always cite Forrest alone. There is a reason for that. Again, there is scant evidence of plantation owners trying to reunite them, and certainly not the “great majority.”
Slavery: the whole reason for secession, or not a reason at all?
Talbot repeats the common myth that Southern secession was not over slavery. Only the “historical revisionist” claims slavery was the cause. Talbot sternly refutes this:
[Slavery] was not an issue in the law, it was not an issue with the Prophets, it was not an issue with Christ, it was not an issue with St. Paul or Peter. So there is really no ground upon which we can say that it is a moral issue that plagued the nation. (32)
Likewise, he sums, “The South did not view secession on the basis of slavery. That was never the question.” (35)
Nevertheless, in the previous lecture, which he apparently forgot, he contradicted this, saying that the whole reason for the South seceding was to separate themselves from the North because it rejected the biblical teaching of . . . slavery!
Talbot said that the South thought Paul justified their institution in the Bible, and Paul also said for anyone opposing the truth of Christ, . . . from such withdraw yourself.
Talbot said openly: “You could almost say this verse, these verses, was the very biblical foundation of the south saying we will not, we will no longer be a part of union which rejects the teaching of scripture and an acceptable institution of slavery and continue with them not whatsoever.” (31)
His latter statement is the correct one. The South seceded with the preservation of their institution of slavery almost unanimously as the official stated cause. Almost every single state secession declaration says so literally in no uncertain terms.
WPA Narratives
Like George Grant, Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, and others, Talbot uncritically and selectively promoted the WPA narratives. He used them to support his claim that slaves had “genuine love for their masters.”
I have explained some of the problems with those fraught sources here, in a free download. Talbot’s only response to the general scholarly caution against those sources was to racialize it: “Black historians have offered all manner of explanations in an effort to do away with these unequivocal testimonies to the general benevolence of Southern slave holders.” (33)
The War Was a Blessing in Disguise
Like other neoconfederate apologists, Talbot promoted the claims that great “revivals” took place in Confederate soldier camps as proof there was a higher, godly purpose for the South in the War. It’s a solace of saving face, I suppose, for those pressed to answer why the South lost a war that they claim was a righteous cause.
Talbot consoled that sometimes God allows a righteous people to suffer at the hands of the ungodly for His own glory. But, the blessing in disguise was that because of the revival in the Southern army, “That’s how we became the Bible Belt.” (35). Over 1,000 preachers came from the army of Lee, Talbot tells us.
To me, this claim has never jived with the rest of the story they tell. Talbot said the South was dominated by 80 percent Calvinist Christians! He said slavery was a biblical institution and that the vast majority of America though it was biblical. The slave owners were all caring, loving, family-man Christians teaching their slaves the read the Bible.
If there was so much Christianity permeating the South and its culture, and everyone virtually was a Christian, then why was there such a dire need for “revival” in the armies? Who was converting? Wasn’t the whole South already the “Bible Belt” from the beginning of the American founding? All this time? Weren’t we just told that virtually the whole South was fighting for biblical culture against the witchcraft of abolitionism? It doesn’t make any sense.
The truth is, that maybe there was “revival,” but the culture was never so Christian as so many of these preachers let on. Church attendance was way lower that many people think.
And maybe, perhaps, *checks own experience for the past 40 years*, it’s quite a thing to rally your base by convincing them their religion and family values are under attack from those great satan liberals in the big cities, and their hordes of immigrants and minorities!
Conclusion
I have tried to warn people about Talbot, Whitefield Seminary, and the pro-confederate racist undercurrents in some of these Reformed micro-denoms for a long time now. Talbot began actively opposing me after I wrote against displaying the Confederate Flag in Summer of 2015. I did not come across his awful lectures, and realize how deeply entrenched in southern racist propaganda his views really were, until late 2018. Had I known earlier, I would have advocated his removal from the AV board immediately and would have opposed him publicly.
I started having the lectures transcribed the following January, but my own fallout with American Vision happened two months later and I never got back to this project. Until now!
In light of the recent attempt at whitewashing Talbot’s views and legacy on this matter, while pretending I was crazy for bringing it up, I think it is important to get the full truth visible to the greater public. I always intended to, anyway.
These views are atrocious and they are racist. I know there are at least some people, including ministers, in that church that still hold many, if not all, of these views. I suspect there are more. There may, in fact, be ties to the modern KKK, and other such groups.
Regarding the RPCGA, there can’t be more than a few hundred parishioners in the micro-denom altogether. The seminary, however, has a greater reach, and an even greater appeal as a cheap online institution. There are people, maybe many, who attended or study in its courses who don’t know what’s beneath the veneer of the brochure and what they’re actually supporting and legitimizing. I know there are, in fact, some quite public leaders and ministers in broader Reformed circles who are or were students.
As a final parting note, there will be a few people who try to exonerate Talbot from this entire mess of racist nonsense by highlighting that his church has a couple ministers of African descent on staff. Proximity, however, is no substitute for rationality and confession. Judge the man on the content of his teaching, which he maintained to his grave. You can’t use the proximity or participation of select individuals to cover for the racism in the substance of the message.