Interrelationship of American Slavery and Christianity in the Slave Narratives.
(What does Bible say about slavery?
Christian slaveholders – followers of Christ or his enemies?)
by Jan Fér
I take it as my duty to write an essay on this topic, for I feel that many people think that slavery (understand
slavery in its American form as described in slave narratives) is something that is described in the Bible as something
fully justifiable or even as a part of God’s laws. We very often judge ideologies or religions, in this case I have in
mind especially Christianity, according to those who claim they stand for their religion’s or ideologies’ teachings.
Black slaves, who recorded their life stories and opinions on slavery and Christianity in their books, unfortunately met
such a form of religion that can be described as pharisaic and hypocritical, misusing and misinterpreting the
Scriptures to justify their bloody deeds and therefore put a blame on Christianity. Yes, the Bible mentions slavery as a
legal institution incorporated in the society of that time, but there are no passages in the Bible that would describe
slavery in its barbarous form as defined in the slave narratives and other literature. Precisely the opposite, the Bible
sets quite a lot of strict rules of holding and treating slaves *. I will try to describe American churches’ attitude
towards slavery by quoting the Bible and the slave narratives we read during this semester.
The churches in North America, during colonial era and after July 4, 1776, were either trying to justify slavery
or were simply blind to it. They have never even thought of opposing institution of slavery and never posed the
question whether slavery was right or wrong. Churches admitted slavery, because it was mentioned in the Bible as
something natural.
“The Lord gave Moses the following laws for his people: If you buy a Hebrew slave, he must remain your
slave for six years. But in the seventh year you must set him free, without cost to him. If he was single at the time you
bought him, he alone must be set free. But if he was married at the time, both he and his wife must be given their
freedom. If you give him a wife, and they have children, only the man himself must be set free; his wife and children
remain the property of his owner. But suppose the slave loves his wife and children so much that he won’t leave
without them. Then he must stand beside either the door or the doorpost at the place of worship, while his owner
punches a small hole through one of his ears with a sharp metal rod. This makes him a slave for life. A young woman
who was sold by her father doesn’t gain her freedom the same way that a man does. If she doesn’t please the man who
bought her to be his wife, he must let her be bought back. He cannot sell her to foreigners; this would make the
contract he made with her. If he selects her as a wife for his son, he must treat her as his own daughter. If the man
later marries another woman, he must continue to provide food and clothing for the one he bought and to treat her as
a wife. If he fails to do any of these things, she must be given freedom without cost.” (Ex 20, 1-10)
Some of the Bible verses from the Book of Genesis were used as the main reason for sanctioning slavery
(Narrative of F. Douglass p. 50; compare to Genesis 9, 18-28). Noah, the man that built the large boat to save his
family and the animals, curses Ham’s son Canaan, because Ham saw him naked (Gn 25, 25: “I now put a curse on
Canaan! He will be the lowest slave of his brothers.”) Canaan’s descendants were called Canaanites and were
believed to move to Africa and becoming black. To be exact I must mention Ex 21, 16 “Death is the punishment for
kidnapping. If you sell the person you kidnapped, or if you are caught with that person, the penalty is death”. I think
that hunt for African Negroes can be easily considered kidnapping, but it is open to a long and difficult dispute. The
churches used to proclaim that Americans were also descendants of Shem and Japheth (Ham’s brothers) and therefore
fulfilling God’s will when they reduced black Africans (descendants of Ham) to slavery.
Another Bible verse that could have been used against slaveholders is Ex 21, 20: “Death is the punishment for
killing any of your slaves...” Neither slaveholders nor their overseers were being punished for killing slaves and yet
none of the churches stood up for the punishment as described in the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An
American Slave, p. 41:
”Shooting a slave. – We learn, upon the authority of a letter from Charles county, Maryland, received by a
gentleman of this city, that a young man, named Matthews, a nephew of General Matthews, and whose father, it is
believed, holds an office at Washington, killed one of his slaves upon his father’s farm by shooting him. The letter
states that young Matthews had been left in charge of the farm; that he gave an order to the servant, which was
disobeyed, when he proceeded to the house, obtained a gun, and, returning, shot the servant. He immediately, the
letter continues, fled to his father’s residence, where he still remains unmolested.”
There is not the tiniest piece of information about some protests of the local church authorities or a single
church member. If there were some, which I really doubt, I do not know why F. Douglass would not cover it. He
himself, later on, became a Christian as one of many Negro slaves. Those black Christians were closer to God than
their white brothers.
There is another evidence of killing a slave with no consequent punishment on page 67: “Mr. Gore once
undertook to whip one of Colonel Lloyd’s slaves ... On page 68 we can find a summary of how killing a slave is
treated in Talbot County, Maryland: “I speak advisedly when I say this, - that killing a slave, or any colored person, in
Talbot county, Maryland is not treated as a crime, either by the courts or the community” (I suppose that community
includes church). Nonetheless, Ex 21, 22 says: “However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to
be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property.” I am quite sure that
this verse suggests to injure your slave to such an extent that he dies a few days later.
Some of the slaveholders used to beat their slaves, including women, in a brutal way and thought they were
doing right. Frederick Douglass came face to face with some of this sort. (Preface of his narrative p.38: “... how like a
brute was he treated, even by those professing having the same mind in them that was in Christ Jesus!”) There are
quite detailed descriptions of severe whipping on pages 51 (“I have often been awakened at the dawn of day by the
most heart-rending shrieks of an own aunt of mine, whom he used to tie up to a joist, and whip upon her naked back
till she was literally covered with blood.) and 52 (“Aunt Hester not only disobeyed his orders in going out, but had
been found with company with Lloyd’s Ned; ...”). Slaves or servants in the Old Testament could even become equal
to family members (Ex 21, 9: “If he selects her as a wife for his son, he must treat her as his own daughter”), they
were not considered subhuman.
But Negroes in America were not only ranked, but also treated as animals or a piece of property, not as human
beings (pp. 54, 89, 90 and 96 where it says: “A great many times have we poor creatures been nearly perishing with
hunger, ... ; and yet that mistress and her husband would kneel every morning, and pray that God would bless them in
basket and store!” – What a perfect example of hypocrisy, for the Bible says, in Lk 6:31(KJV): “And as ye would that
men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise”). Ex 21, 12 says: “Work the first six days of the week, but rest
and relax on the seventh day. This law is not only for you, but for your oxen, donkeys, and slaves, as well as for any
foreigners among you.” The Bible here lines up animals and slaves. I am not positive about that, but I think church
might have used this part of the Bible to degrade slaves to animal level.
Further on, Frederick describes his master experiencing religion on p.97, which says: “In August 1832, my
master attended a Methodist camp-meeting held in the Bay-side, Talbot county, and there he experienced religion.”
Frederick Douglass had presupposed his master to change his habits, but was terribly disappointed when he found out
that: “If it had any effect on his character, it made him more cruel and hateful in all his ways; for I believe him to have
been a much worse man after the conversion than before.” The question, why, suggests itself here. The answer is
further in the next: “Prior to his conversion, he relied upon his own depravity to shield and sustain him in his savage
barbarity; but after his conversion, he found religious sanction and support for his slaveholding cruelty.” It makes me
feel that Frederick Douglass’ master was advised by religious authorities (Methodist church) to keep treating his
slaves with no humanity. “His house was a house of prayer” as Frederick says on the following page. This very man is
a symbolic example of American churches’ attitudes towards slavery in the first half of the 19 th century. They
preached Jesus Christ, Salvation and equality of all men, but yet they deprived their slaves of the right to hear the
Gospel (p. 98 “While I lived in St. Michael’s ...”).
How corrupted must American churches have been, when nobody opposed this “Captain Auld” after his
beating a lame young woman with a “heavy cowskin”, causing the “warm red blood to drop” as described on pp. 99
and 100. How perverted it was to justify such a bloody deed by quoting a passage of Scripture (“He that knoweth his
master’s will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.”) How ironic of Frederick Douglass to say: “Master
Thomas was one of the many pious slaveholders who hold slaves for the very charitable purpose of taking care of
them.” This was another church’s justification for dragging so many Negroes to the USA – taking care of these
heathens and saving them by preaching the Gospel to them. As you can see on p. 98, not all of the slaveholders
carried on this mission:
“While I lived with my master in St. Michael’s, there was a young man, a Mr. Wilson, who proposed to keep a
Sabbath school for instruction of such slaves as might be disposed to learn to read the New Testament. We met but
three times, when Mr. West and Mr. Fairbanks, both class-leaders, with many others, came upon us with sticks and
other missiles, drove us off, and forbade us to meet again. Thus ended out little Sabbath school in the pious town of St.
Michael’s).”
Slaveholders, regardless which denomination they belonged to, were able to justify some of their deeds by
quoting the Bible. But how could they justify sexual intercourse with women slaves and their children born out of
wedlock as described on p.48? “My father was a white man. He was admitted to be such by all I ever heard speak of
my parentage. The opinion was also whispered that my master was my father; but of the correctness of this opinion, I
know nothing; the means of knowing was withheld from me”). They did neither marry them (I can understand that; it
was impossible) nor treated them or their children with more respect, as they would deserve (2 nd paragraph on p.49:
“The whisper that my father... ; and this is done too obviously to administer to their own lusts, and make a
gratification of their wicked desires profitable as well as pleasurable; ...”). Well, let us look at the Ten Commandments
in Ex 20, 14 or Dt 5, 18: “Be faithful in marriage.” In other words: do not have sex with any other women except your
own wife! This cannot awake in us a favorable impression of those slaveholders who had sex with their women slaves.
Left alone their godliness.
The Golden Rule of the New Testament is “Do as you want to be done by”, that is what Jesus Christ came to
preach. Jesus, in the New Testament says: “Don’t condemn others, and God won’t condemn you. God will be as hard
on you as you are on others! He will treat you exactly as you treat them.” (Mt 7, 1-2) or: “Love the Lord your God
with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind; and Love your neighbors as you love yourself.” (Lk 10,27). But you
cannot possibly love someone as yourself and treat him worse than animal at the same time.
The American churches slipped to take the wrong side. Instead of fighting this immoral state of things, they
actively supported it. Slaveholders were pastors, group leaders, teachers of religion – corrupted religion, Sunday
school leaders, etc. Let us agree on that God is “good” and that He created men in His image (Gn 1,26). By ranking
slaves as animals, letting them starve, whipping them, torturing them, depriving them of their freedom and rights,
killing them for no reason – just because of having absolute power over them and saying: “We are only doing God’s
will”, the slaveholders and church corrupted God’s will and proclaimed Him evil. Implicitly, if God was evil then His
creation would necessarily be evil too and American slavery would be right.
I beg leave to state that solely this narrative by Frederick Douglass and the Bible, taken as a whole in its
complexity, convict those slaveholders and overseers, members of American churches (mind the note at the end), of
atrocity, murder, immorality, hatred and corruption of God’s Laws. These qualities have nothing to do with pure
Christian teachings at all. ‘Any stick will do to beat a dog with’ or in other words: trying to find a tool to sanction evil
does not mean you quit doing evil.
Bibliography:
1) Douglass, Frederick; The Narrative of Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave
2) The Contemporary English Version of The Holy Bible
Questions to answers:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
What Bible passage talk about slavery? What do they say about it?
According to this essay, how did the slaveholders treat their slaves?
How did they justify their behavior?
Did the slaveholders ever kill any of their slaves?
How did the Christian churches respond to that?
Vocabulary to study:
Duty
justifiable
to have in mind
according to
Religion
hypocritical
deeds
misinterpret
Blame
incorporated
preciselly
blind
Admitted
worship
put a curse
to kidnap
Rod
disobey
hold an office
unmolested
Tiniest
evidence
consequent
whipping
Beating
perish
hypocricy
oxen
Presuppose
depravity
savage
lame
Pious
heathens
preaching
born out of wedlock
Lust
condemn
slipped
solely
overseers