God, Slavery, and Resistance in Walker, Douglass, and Turner

Introduction: Religion at the Center of the Slavery Debate

David Walker writes that he knows he will be assailed by those who are of the firm conviction that Heaven has designed us and our children to be slaves and beasts of burden to them and their children. This statement places religion at the very center of the antebellum slavery debate. Far from being a peripheral concern, the question of what God intended — for both master and slave — shaped how each side understood, justified, and resisted the institution. Slavery as a social institution was legitimized, challenged, and ultimately condemned through the language of Christian faith, and the writings of Walker, Frederick Douglass, and Nat Turner make this ideological struggle vividly clear.

Slaveholder Tactics: Using Ignorance and Religion to Maintain Control

In his narrative, the enslaved writer Frederick Douglass echoes Walker's observations by suggesting that slave masters employed many tactics to keep enslaved people ignorant and to prevent them from rising up. One strategy Douglass describes in detail is the use of whisky during holidays. Slave owners, he argues, were pleased when their slaves spent the entire holiday drunk, because the experience made enslaved people see that labor was preferable to a stupor of intoxication. In effect, the holiday became another mechanism of control rather than genuine rest or freedom.

Douglass further argues that slave owners preferred degrading physical pastimes — such as wrestling and boxing — over reading or any form of intellectual activity. The reason was similar: such activities kept enslaved people feeling inferior to their masters and occupied them with pursuits that were unlikely to inspire revolt. In this same spirit, slave owners promoted a version of Christianity designed to make enslaved people compliant, telling them that slavery was ordained by God and that submission was a religious duty.

What Walker and Douglass together make clear, however, is that enslaved people saw through this manipulation. Walker directly addresses the point when he writes that God rules the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth, having his ears continually open to the cries, tears, and groans of his oppressed people; and being a just and holy Being will at one day appear fully in behalf of the oppressed. In other words, Walker understood that slaveholders and enslaved people worshipped fundamentally different versions of God — and he was certain that the enslaved people's version was the true one.

The Slaves' God: Deliverer, Witness, and Avenger

Walker's passage makes plain that the God of the enslaved was not only the opposite of the slaveholder's God but was also a God of uprising and ultimate liberation. Where the masters' God sanctioned chains, the slaves' God promised to break them. David Walker's Appeal is perhaps the most forceful expression of this theology, insisting that divine justice would inevitably come down on the side of the oppressed. For Douglass, this same God served as a witness and a source of personal solace — someone to whom the enslaved could cry out in their pain and find at least spiritual comfort even when earthly relief was denied.

Conclusion: Two Gods, One Institution

Thus, in a society thoroughly saturated with religion, God was claimed by both sides of the slavery debate. For slave owners, God was the author of slavery — the divine power who had created Black people to serve white people. This belief allowed slaveholders not only to understand the institution intellectually but also to participate in its horrors while maintaining a sense of righteousness, because they associated the entire system with divine sanction.

On the other side, enslaved people saw God as their deliverer and rescuer. For Frederick Douglass, God was the one to whom the enslaved could cry out in pain, and Douglass testified that he received genuine solace from doing so. David Walker went further, arguing that God would hear those cries and ultimately bring slavery to an end. Nat Turner carried this interpretation to its most radical conclusion, using the same theological framework to authorize violent revolt. In the end, both sides of the slavery debate invoked the concept of God and religion to make sense of an institution that — as all three enslaved writers insisted — was itself a moral abomination.