The institution of slavery

Institution of Slavery

One may find it quite easy to stand with The Reverend Thornton Stringfellow concerning his views of the institution of slavery. As a Deacon of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Virginia, and Pastor of the Stevensburg Baptist church in Culpeper County, Virginia, Reverend Stringfellow brings a clear understanding of the traditional beliefs of his congregation. His argument in favor of slavery is substantiated point for point by the Scripture of the Old and New Testament. Unlike those whose main complaint against slavery is that it is "wrong," Stringfellow elucidates the mandate one has, according to the Bible, to protect those whose fortunes have left them crying for support against those who would use them carelessly. According to the American Heritage Dictionary electronic edition, something is wrong if it is contrary to conscience, morality, law, or custom. How, then, can Rev. Thornton Stringfellow be wrong?

Slavery is easier to label wrong when an entire race finds itself in the grip of domination and the issue of race raises its ugly head. Let us consider for a moment, that slavery is not a race issue. Please read the last six words again. Perhaps slavery looks wrong because someone realized that skin color does not predict capability. Since this is obviously true, then slavery must be wrong. Wrong, because in America slaves were black. It is time to remove the race card and come to the real issue of slavery. Slavery is a fallout shelter for the loser, whatever battle he/she lost.

Slavery has a long history. It is not simply the forced labor of the blacks by the whites in the Antebellum South -- although that is, no doubt, the slavery that Stringfellow defends. According to Dr. Don Boys, "Far more whites have been slaves than blacks" (2). That is an interesting concept. But no one likes to be on the politically incorrect side of an argument. When Rev. Stringfellow published his argument for slavery, political correctness was not in vogue, yet his argument is still valid today. Slavery was not wrong then, and it is not wrong now.

Consider the fact that throughout the ages God sanctions slavery. God's authoritative approval of man's behavior on earth includes slavery. God had to know what was going on. Is it valid to overlook the obvious? Boys makes his argument that, "The Old Testament recognized slavery as a reality and sought to mitigate it since it was a fact of life throughout the world (2). A fact, tradition, morally acceptable, etcetera! Must one return to the very meaning of right and wrong to discover that right means to "adhere to traditional beliefs and hold conservative political views, or something that is morally and ethically proper, just and good?" (Amer. Heritage). If one believes the argument introduced by Dr. Boys, then one must redefine the meaning of the word right! Besides, God does not have to mitigate anything.

Was slavery contrary to conscience? Obviously not during the period, that Rev. Stringfellow wrote his article. He had the pulse of the south behind his words. Was slavery contrary to morality? Again, no. Slaves were property. Morality in the Bible does not condemn the proper use of human property. Is slavery against the law or custom of the time? Repeatedly, no.

Is slavery right? If right is something that is just and good, then the care and support of an otherwise condemned prisoner is just and good. It is fair to exact payment for that support and it is right to do so. No one ever promised that life would be fair. Stringfellow writes, "Slavery is full of mercy" (1).

This is true. One must always return to the accepted principals of the period. Certainly even Reverend Stringfellow considered a cruel slave owner morally unjust. He supports his argument by citing well-known words of Jesus, to "Do to others as you would they should do to you." This does not mean do not have slaves because you do not want to be one. This means that one should treat others, as he would want to be treated according to the circumstances in which they find themselves. If it means something different then all men would strive to be equal. It would be morally and ethically proper to strive toward a Socialist state. Jesus knew there were kings and slaves, outcasts and criminals, yet he did not prescribe communal living.