Who Killed Slavery?

Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...

Mo Rocca Feed

Posted Jan 10th 2008 9:00PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Christianity, History, Controversy, Atheism

Isn't it remarkable that atheists, who did virtually nothing to oppose slavery, condemn Christians, who are the ones who abolished it?

Consider atheist Sam Harris, who blames Christianity for supporting slavery. Harris is right that slavery existed among the Old Testament Jews, and Paul even instructs slaves to obey their masters. During the civil war both sides quoted the Bible. We know all this. (Yawn, yawn.)

But slavery pre-dated Christianity by centuries and even millennia. As we read from sociologist Orlando Patterson's work, all known cultures had slavery. For centuries, slavery needed no defenders because it had no critics. Atheists who champion ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome somehow seem to forget that those empires were based on large-scale enslavement.

Atheist Michael Shermer says Christians are "late comers" to the movement against slavery. But if this is true, who were the early comers? There weren't any. Shermer probably thinks the Christians only got around to opposing slavery in the modern era.

Wrong. Slavery was mostly eradicated from Western civilization--then called Christendom--between the fourth and the tenth century. The Greco-Roman institution of slavery gave way to serfdom. Now serfdom has its problems but at least the serf is not a "human tool" and cannot be bought and sold like property. So slavery was ended twice in Western civilization, first in the medieval era and then again in the modern era.

In the American South, Christianity proved to be the solace of the oppressed. As historian Eugene Genovese documents in Roll, Jordan, Roll, when black slaves sought to find dignity during the dark night of slavery, they didn't turn to Marcus Aurelius or David Hume; they turned to the Bible. When they sought hope and inspiration for liberation, they found it not in Voltaire or D'Holbach but in the Book of Exodus.

The anti-slavery movements led by Wilberforce in England and abolitionists in America were dominated by Christians. These believers reasoned that since we are all created equal in the eyes of God, no one has the right to rule another without consent. This is the moral basis not only of anti-slavery but also of democracy.

Jefferson was in some ways the least orthodox and the most skeptical of the founders. Yet when he condemned slavery he found himself using biblical language. In Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson warned that those who would enslave people should reflect that "the Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest." Jefferson famously added, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep for ever."

But wasn't Jefferson also a man of science? Yes he was, and it was on the basis of the latest science of his day that Jefferson expressed his convictions about black inferiority. Citing the discoveries of modern science, Jefferson noted that "there are varieties in the race of man, distinguished by their powers both of body and of mind...as I see to be the case with races of other animals." Blacks, Jefferson continued, lack the powers of reason that are evident in whites and even in native Indians. While atheists today like to portray themselves as paragons of equal dignity, Jefferson's scientific and skeptical outlook contributed not to his anti-slavery sentiments but to his racism. Somehow Harris and Shermer neglect to point this out.

In the end the fact remains that the only movements that opposed slavery in principle were mobilized in the West, and they were overwhelmingly led and populated by Christians. Sadly the West had to use force to stop slavery in other cultures, such as the Muslim slave trade off the coast of Africa. In some quarters the campaign to eradicate slavery still goes on.

So who killed slavery? The Christians did, while everyone else generally stood by and watched.

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [613]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 41)

Previous 15 Comments | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

61. Here's more from the same website:

As Northerners decried slavery and called for its abolition, southern political and religious leaders found an easy ally for their pro-slavery cause in the Bible and Christian history.

In 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia, put the pro-slavery Christian message succinctly in his "A Scriptural View of Slavery:"

...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction...

Of course, Christians in the North disagreed - and some denominations, like Quakers, appear to have never been afflicted by slavery.

Interestingly, most abolitionist attacks were based on the premise that the nature of Hebrew slavery differed in significant ways from the nature of slavery in the American South.

Although this was meant to argue that the American form of slavery did not enjoy Biblical support, it nevertheless tacitly admitted that the institution of slavery did, in principle, have divine sanction and approval so long as conducted in an appropriate manner.

In the end, the North won on the question of slavery.

Although the ***Southern Baptist Convention*** was formed in an effort to preserve the Christian basis for slavery before the start of the Civil War, they did not feel it necessary to bother apologizing until June 1995.

The reason was that even though the question of slavery had been settled, the question of race still burned.

Linda at 10:28AM on Jan 11th 2008

62. Sorry about multiple posts. Must be software problem at AOL. or something.

Linda at 10:29AM on Jan 11th 2008

63. Douche Denish,
You are a stupid stupid man! Atheists weren't around much in the 1800's. Atheists didn't enslave men to begin with; the Christians did and justified it with their gory bible!
Slavery occurred when men developed lands, established kingdoms and developed the laws of RELIGION. The first kings wrote down in the earliest of religious beliefs that " A KING IS GOD'S REPRESENTATIVE ON EARTH, MAN IS A SLAVE TO HIS KING"
If it wasn't for RELIGIONS who choose sets of ethnic groups as the "chosen" elite there wouldn't have been ethnocentrism that causes the racism that has been around since the beginning of organized religion!
The Christians fought Christians to abolish slavery while the less than 1% atheists denied their belief in no god in order to survive and not be killed by zealot Christians!
Slaves had more rights under Greek and Roman governments thanks to the secular writers of their times. Then come the Christians and they destroyed the little rights they had.
The early church fathers not once opposed slavery and it was Constantine who created the worst slavery laws during the political construction of Christianity.
It is not a coincidence that the freedom of the slaves across the world occurred at the same time that the Christian church was losing its stranglehold on the world in large thanks to Humanitarian reforms and the Age of Rationalism that had swept over Europe in the 1800's.
So get a fucking clue and realize if it wasn't for Christians we would have never had to fight for the abolishment of slavery!

goddess1prevail at 10:32AM on Jan 11th 2008

64. oops sorry for the double post

goddess1prevail at 10:33AM on Jan 11th 2008

65. Sorry about multiple posts. Very frustrating.

Linda at 10:35AM on Jan 11th 2008

66. Sorry about multiple posts. Very frustrating.

Linda at 10:35AM on Jan 11th 2008

67. Sorry about multiple posts. Very frustrating.

Linda at 10:35AM on Jan 11th 2008

68. what would the world do without the atheist to give us moral guidance. though its kind of an oxymoron for those who believe in no god, a god who gave us the morals you reject, to spout moral platitudes. indeed it is plain stupid really and laughable at best that atheist want to take a higher moral ground than the reat of the world. who is stupid here? and then clearly those morals you do have are only situational. perverted is what it is.
______________________
Obviously, brian, you are the stupid one here (since you asked) and you either haven't read any of the replies to previous of your comments (very similar to this one) or you can't remember anything you're told. These blogs have provided you with overwhelming evidence to the fact that morality was not given to the world by your god. But atheists claim higher moral ground? Because we acknowledge that morality existed before your god? I suppose you don't think Gandhi was a very moral person either? Let's consider this little pearl of wisdom from one of the oldest surviving books in human history, written by Ptahhotep of Memphis between 3400 and 2150 BCE:

Don't be proud of your knowledge, consult the ignorant and the wise;
The limits of art are not reached, no artist's skills are perfect;
Good speech is more hidden than greenstone, yet may be found among the maids at the grindstones...
Follow your heart as long as you live...
Wealth does no good if one is glum!
Be generous as long as you live;
Kindness is a man's memorial.

There is no mention of your or any god and yet the man clearly shows an understanding of morality. Get off your high horse, brian. God has nothing to do with the dawn of morality. What's perverted is your sense of moral superiority.

emma at 10:40AM on Jan 11th 2008

69. WHAT OF SLAVERY - TODAY???

Who is fighting the worldwide HUMAN SEXUAL TRAFFICKING?

LISt of partners on this site

http://www.iast.net/partners.htm

WHAT are the MAJOR ways girls, women, children DIE or ARE ABUSED when forced to work as prostitutes?

http://www.iast.net/thefacts.htm

Quote on turning humans into "commodities":
from this site

"The disturbing tendency to treat prostitution as a business or industry not only contributes to the trade in human beings, but is itself evidence of a growing tendency to detach freedom from the moral law and to reduce the rich mystery of human sexuality to a mere commodity."
Letter of John Paul II to Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran

on the occasion of the International Conference
"Twenty-first Century Slavery - The Human Rights Dimension to Trafficking in Human Beings"

ALL persons (whatever their beliefs) should be fighting this and any other kinds of slavery...

DNA - a great design at 10:47AM on Jan 11th 2008

70. "God has nothing to do with the dawn of morality"-Emma
I agree with you 100% emma. It is the belief in god that established the slavery system to begin with as another early quote states;
"THE KING IS GODS REPRESENTATIVE ON EARTH, AND MAN IS A SLAVE TO HIS GOD"

goddess1prevail at 11:00AM on Jan 11th 2008

71. emma,

i would say the same thing,you have no moral either. god gave us morals from day one. you claim no god, yet you cannot say where the stinkin morals came from. you think your man from memphis made them up? god said he gave us all a concious that bears witness to what is right and what is wrong. the issue of right and wrong is written in our dna code if you will. we can't escape it because we were made in the image of a moral god. i do not claim a moral high ground, but crap on the fact you atheist do, its pure dung in my mind and its beyond absurd. you could not be more wrong. why not head to china where you get no argument about god, they banned him!!! or would you not have the freedom to be so vocal and find yourself under the tank

brian at 11:02AM on Jan 11th 2008

72. Pboy -

LOL...what a response. How long did it take you to come up with it? Did you need a nap later?

You might not LIKE my assessment, but that isn't what is important here. The question is, "Does it follow?" Is it true?

Your simply assertion of "dislike" for my answer does nothing to undermine my analysis. You have a brain - tax it a little.

JSL at 11:03AM on Jan 11th 2008

73. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian Priest. Hmmm. Once again Dinesh D'Souza is betraying his ignorance of history as well as that of Christianity, and "cherry picking" facts (as this intellectually dishonest pundit ALWAYS does) to make his point and his shameless pro-Christian anti-atheist polemic.

Christians tended, for the most part, to suppot the status quo. Until quite recently in Christian history there was a belief that Jesus was right around the corner so, yes, things were bad, but if we can just hang on, Jesus will be coming back to punish the wicked and oppressors and reward the good. Now, this was (and still is in many circles) a POPULAR belief and BY NO MEANS taught generally by even the Western Church, although, OF COURSE it was embraced by many in power. Now, folks, this has a great deal to do with power and human nature and very little to do with Christianity.

Dinsesh shows an equal ignorance of Medieval history and economics. Slavery was not abolished totally in Medieval times, it evolved. There were still many places in the world where slavery existed, even as it does today. There was no great Christian outcry, nor a prohibition by the Church on slavery. It became economically unviable, as slavery usually does in culture, and was replaced with the medieval feudal system. Dinesh says serf's were not owned and could not be bought and sold. This was technically true, but false in practice. This is borne out by many practices, but one of the most egregious (supported by Christianity) was Prima Nocta, or the right of the feudal Lord to have sex with any bride under his "protection" on the first night of marriage. While this applied to everyone who looked to a Lord, it was generally only exercised with the serfs. Now let's see...you get married and on your wedding night the Laird of the Manor gets to deflower your wife. Possibley good genetics, but sounds like slavery TO ME.

As for abolition in America, more Christians were AGAINST abolition in the South than were for it. As for Jefferson using the Bible to quote, EVERYONE used the Bible to quote...it was the best known work of the time. EVERYONE belonged to a church of some sort or another. You didn't do business if you didn't, and, in some cases, there were laws against NOT attending Church. As for Jefferson being racist, for heaven's sake LINCOLN was racist and saw blacks as inferior people with rights nonethless. (And, contrary to what many believe it is simply unhistorical to assert that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Abolition was a tactic USED by the North to help win the war. That it was also the right thing to do probably didn't enter into many people's heads at the time...)

The whole Southern Baptist Church was formed because other Baptists were abolitionists. While it has let go of its pro-slavery position (reluctantly) it still is one of the largest church denominations in the United States.

Dinesh, your attitude is that if something good happens and Christians happen to be present the good happened thanks to Christians. If something bad happened and Christians did it, this is simply an abberation. You are guilty of every rhetorical fallacy known to humanity. I know you're a Princeton(?) fellow and all, but I really wonder at times if you EVER paid attention in history class or English or Rhetoric classes at college. If so, did you simply ignore it? Are you ignorant or simply dishonest or both?

Father John at 5:52PM on Jan 11th 2008

74. brian, are you stating that morality is an inherent condition for all people?

JefFlyingV at 11:06AM on Jan 11th 2008

75. One must not get caught up in racial difference that consisted of Slavery back in the day.

Instead we must realize that as the world evolves around us, we evolve and with us evolving, Slavery naturally evolves.

Slavery has no limitations. It doesn't start with color and it surely doesn't end with Color. The meaning of Slavery doesn't start with Serving someone and it doesn't end with Serving someone.

Slavery in itself is a form of being trapped.

Sometimes we don't know when we are trapped. Sometimes we don't know when we are being controlled. Sometimes we don't know when we are in fact Slaves in the modern day.

Dinesh you are simplistic. Slavery based on Color is over in US. But Slavery in itself is far from over.

With your education background, you are a disappointment. I must ask.

Who is your master? Whoever it is, you are providing service. Maybe to recruit more slaves.

Botts at 11:06AM on Jan 11th 2008

Previous 15 Comments | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.

Mo's Video

The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...
Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...

Coming Soon

Most Commented On

Coming Soon

Mo's Bio

Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.