On December 9, 1860, four months before the first shots of the American Civil War, the Rev. Henry J. van Dyke, the minister of the First Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn, New York, preached against the abolition of slavery. He published his sermon as a pamphlet, complete with footnotes. Van Dyke’s theme was Christian morality, but his fear was that abolition would wreck the cotton-based economy. Religion was merely his excuse, his smokescreen, his blustering apotheosis. As so often happens, the speaker’s crude motives contradicted his moralistic proof.
“I have selected a text from the Bible, van Dyke said, “and propose to adhere to the letter and spirit of its teaching.” At the outset, he prepared his audience to believe that religious authority supported his subsequent economic, pro-slavery arguments. And how could his audience argue with that? I mean, Christians can argue against slavery, but to clash with the Bible? So, he gave (biblical) authority as an excuse—or a bludgeon—to preempt moral arguments against his position.
This famous, distinguished minister of a Christian church in a non-slave state used religion to support the absolute evil of chattel slavery. Still, quoting religious scriptures for an evil cause is nothing new. As Antonio opines in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice:
What Does the Bible Say?
Van Dyke’s sermon-pamphlet began by quoting this passage from 1 Timothy, chapter 6:
Note, please, that 1 Timothy says nothing about politics or economics. Instead, this passage asks slaves to submit to the yoke, while expressing no sympathy for their plight. However, it says nothing to justify being a slave master. We could easily interpret this passage to mean that a person should willingly submit to evil, but one must stretch to say that the passage encourages people to commit evil. That’s a different thing entirely, is it not? Van Dyke pulled quite a trick there. How did he do that?
Van Dyke insisted that this ancient moral teaching refers, not just to ancient times, but specifically to the United States in 1860. Van Dyke projected his biblical text centuries ahead—to be a prophecy for the Abraham Lincoln era. To make that historical and logical leap, van Dyke jumped from saying that slaves should obey to the broader, political claim that sin underlies the very practice and ideology of abolition. So, van Dyke uttered this stunning claim:
The Bible and Economics?
Indeed, as his sermon continued, van Dyke wandered away from slavery’s morality and, as a true conservative, complained that abolition would disrupt (white people’s) economic health. Yet he still gave credit to Providence, not to simple greed, for the way that the cotton trade linked North and South:
Conclusion
Van Dyke began his pro-slavery argument by citing a tangentially relevant biblical passage, drew a conclusion that that passage failed to support, and finally argued that he supported slavery, really, mostly for economic reasons. The sermon perverted Christianity into an excuse for economic oppression. Van Dyke bludgeoned abolitionists down to hellfire. Even sadder, Van Dyke feared for Southern plantation owners and northern (mostly white) factory workers, while giving not a moment’s thought to enslaved families in their abject misery. Where did van Dyke really get his inspiration? From the Bible, or King Cotton?
Yes, there were abolitionist white churches in 1860, especially the Quakers. Too often, however, white churches had made their peace with slavery. And what about today? Does anyone see a family resemblance to the 20th Century Christian Right’s continuing opposition to civil rights enforcement or to “wokeness?” To their campaign against teaching African American history? Does the advancement of minority group members still make other people anxious? The Bible is right about many things, but the most blatantly obvious is when it says that “there is no new thing under the sun” (Eccles. 1:9)
Franklin Graham Prays for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents: Religion Becomes a Political Tool
________________
Research note: Slavery wasn’t just a southern issue. Although New York had outlawed slavery in 1817, historians often note that large swaths of the 19th century United States economy still depended indirectly on forced labor. The southern economy used slave labor to produce raw cotton, while the cotton was often processed in and exported from the north. Often enough, northerners protested slavery and looked down on slavers, even as they profited from slaves’ unpaid work. For example, Eric Foner’s widely used textbook, Give Me Liberty, vol. 1, discusses this issue.
Textual note: How accurate is the text of van Dyke’s speech? In the days before film, television, and YouTube, major speeches received far more distribution in pamphlets and newspapers than they did when originally presented to the audience. Thus, speakers could revise, expand, or condense the speech text to suit their purposes. Yet, my former professor Kurt Ritter said that published texts often had the most influence and were therefore most worthy of study. Which do you think matters more: the speech delivered to the initial audience, or the version that was widely distributed to the public?
“I have selected a text from the Bible, van Dyke said, “and propose to adhere to the letter and spirit of its teaching.” At the outset, he prepared his audience to believe that religious authority supported his subsequent economic, pro-slavery arguments. And how could his audience argue with that? I mean, Christians can argue against slavery, but to clash with the Bible? So, he gave (biblical) authority as an excuse—or a bludgeon—to preempt moral arguments against his position.
This famous, distinguished minister of a Christian church in a non-slave state used religion to support the absolute evil of chattel slavery. Still, quoting religious scriptures for an evil cause is nothing new. As Antonio opines in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice:
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose!Van Dyke cited scripture for his purpose. As we will see, van Dyke built his vile case by expounding a lengthy Bible passage, which, by an intricate pattern of reasoning, led him to warn of the dire economic consequences that would follow if abolitionists destroyed slavery.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek.
What Does the Bible Say?
Van Dyke’s sermon-pamphlet began by quoting this passage from 1 Timothy, chapter 6:
1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Ironically, the biblical book of 1 Timothy, taken as a whole, is a diatribe against false teachers. I can hardly imagine how shameless van Dyke must have been to draw his text from that book. Van Dyke pointedly did not quote an otherwise similar passage in Colossians 4:1, which adds, “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” Starting with religious evidence did, nevertheless, give this sermon great power. Religious arguments can stop political conversations and shut down reasoned debate in a heartbeat.
________________________________
Note, please, that 1 Timothy says nothing about politics or economics. Instead, this passage asks slaves to submit to the yoke, while expressing no sympathy for their plight. However, it says nothing to justify being a slave master. We could easily interpret this passage to mean that a person should willingly submit to evil, but one must stretch to say that the passage encourages people to commit evil. That’s a different thing entirely, is it not? Van Dyke pulled quite a trick there. How did he do that?
Van Dyke insisted that this ancient moral teaching refers, not just to ancient times, but specifically to the United States in 1860. Van Dyke projected his biblical text centuries ahead—to be a prophecy for the Abraham Lincoln era. To make that historical and logical leap, van Dyke jumped from saying that slaves should obey to the broader, political claim that sin underlies the very practice and ideology of abolition. So, van Dyke uttered this stunning claim:
“The text . . . is a prophecy written for these days, and wonderfully applicable to our present circumstances. It gives us a life-like picture of Abolitionism in its principles, its spirit and its practice, and furnishes us plain instruction in regard to our duty in the premises.” (p. 6) [italics added]Prophecy was not, however, the point that van Dyke ended with. Having proven to his own satisfaction that slavery was morally good, he then turned to his real topic: the advantages of lucre, mammon, or, if you prefer, plain, unadorned greed. Let King Cotton rule, and everyone (except the slaves) could prosper.
 |
| Picking cotton under an overseer’s watch, c. 1850 |
Indeed, as his sermon continued, van Dyke wandered away from slavery’s morality and, as a true conservative, complained that abolition would disrupt (white people’s) economic health. Yet he still gave credit to Providence, not to simple greed, for the way that the cotton trade linked North and South:
“A kind and wonderful Providence has so tempered the body of these States together, so bound and interlaced them with commercial and social ties, to say nothing of legal obligations, that no member can be severed, and especially no contests can be waged among the members, without a quivering and anguish in every active, and a stagnation in the vital currents of all.” (p. 29)It was heaven, in other words, that set up the slave-based economy. And not just any heaven, but “a kind and wonderful Providence” that set up the slave-based economy. So, van Dyke concluded, abolition would prevent any peaceful attempt to settle the nation’s dispute without war:
“And as Abolitionism is the great mischief-maker between the North and South, so it is the great stumbling-block in the way of a peaceful settlement of our difficulties.” (p. 29)As he neared his conclusion, van Dyke left his moral arguments trodden into the dust, instead focusing his congregation’s attention on simple economics. Since the North depended on the cotton trade just as much as the South, he remarked, what would happen to factory workers and ships’ crews if they could no longer process the products of slave labor? The very thought of abolition filled van Dyke with horror. Indeed, he warned that abolition would devastate the economy:
“When the thousands of working-men whose subsistence depends upon our trade with the South, many of whom have been deluded by Abolitionist demagogues, shall clamor in our streets for bread, free labor may present some problems which political economy has not solved.” (p. 38)In fact, stunningly, even as he defended his view against the abolitionists, van Dyke unwittingly admitted that Christian teaching does not endorse slaveholding after all:
“The New Testament is utterly silent in regard to the alleged sinfulness of slaveholding.” (p. 10)Van Dyke’s opening text from 1 Timothy, which asked slaves to obey their overlords, turned out to be merely an excuse. So, what was left was his view that Christian teaching is silent about slavery, that the divinely arranged economy rested on slavery, and, therefore, slavery was moral while abolition was wrong. The logical gaps are obvious. 1 Timothy did not defend capturing people and holding them in slavery, and claiming that the slave economy was Heaven-sent merely begged the question. The cruel facts of American slavery, known then and now to any school child, received no mention. Well, no one expects slavers to exhibit moral consistency.
Conclusion
Van Dyke began his pro-slavery argument by citing a tangentially relevant biblical passage, drew a conclusion that that passage failed to support, and finally argued that he supported slavery, really, mostly for economic reasons. The sermon perverted Christianity into an excuse for economic oppression. Van Dyke bludgeoned abolitionists down to hellfire. Even sadder, Van Dyke feared for Southern plantation owners and northern (mostly white) factory workers, while giving not a moment’s thought to enslaved families in their abject misery. Where did van Dyke really get his inspiration? From the Bible, or King Cotton?
Yes, there were abolitionist white churches in 1860, especially the Quakers. Too often, however, white churches had made their peace with slavery. And what about today? Does anyone see a family resemblance to the 20th Century Christian Right’s continuing opposition to civil rights enforcement or to “wokeness?” To their campaign against teaching African American history? Does the advancement of minority group members still make other people anxious? The Bible is right about many things, but the most blatantly obvious is when it says that “there is no new thing under the sun” (Eccles. 1:9)
________________
Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right
Rev. Witherspoon and the Christian Right in the Revolutionary War
John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry
Rev. Witherspoon and the Christian Right in the Revolutionary War
John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry
Franklin Graham Prays for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents: Religion Becomes a Political Tool
________________
Research note: Slavery wasn’t just a southern issue. Although New York had outlawed slavery in 1817, historians often note that large swaths of the 19th century United States economy still depended indirectly on forced labor. The southern economy used slave labor to produce raw cotton, while the cotton was often processed in and exported from the north. Often enough, northerners protested slavery and looked down on slavers, even as they profited from slaves’ unpaid work. For example, Eric Foner’s widely used textbook, Give Me Liberty, vol. 1, discusses this issue.
Textual note: How accurate is the text of van Dyke’s speech? In the days before film, television, and YouTube, major speeches received far more distribution in pamphlets and newspapers than they did when originally presented to the audience. Thus, speakers could revise, expand, or condense the speech text to suit their purposes. Yet, my former professor Kurt Ritter said that published texts often had the most influence and were therefore most worthy of study. Which do you think matters more: the speech delivered to the initial audience, or the version that was widely distributed to the public?
Images: public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
No comments:
Post a Comment