Slavery and the Bible

 Throughout history, we have seen the idea of slavery take place all over the world. We have focused on the most in the United States, especially in the 1800s. Religion played a massive role in how people viewed slavery because during this time most people were very religious no matter what the religion may have been. In Catholicism, we see that they believed in slavery because their religion never specifically said anything negative about it. Since their religion never preached that the idea of slavery was a sin, they saw nothing wrong with the idea and took it as more of a right. 

Pro-Slavery: Rachel

Since Catholicism was the main religion in the United States throughout the prime years of slavery, it influenced people’s minds the most. According to Ephesians 6:5-8 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. This shows how the Bible easily tells people it is ok and will not be looked down upon by God. For instance, in Maryland, there was a plantation that was bought by a Jesuit priest who used his slaves to spread the word of the Catholic church. The pay that the slaves would receive would go to the building of new churches and new schools. We see here that the Catholic church used the Bible to preach and enforce the idea of slavery.

This photo shows Frank Campbell who was one of the enslaved men on this plantation.

New York Times Article

Over the years the Catholic Church has grown and modernized. One big thing that has changed was when the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (teachings of the Roman Catholic church) was published in 1994. This new idea of teachings truly changes the Catholic’s ideas from pro slavery to against it. In the seventh commandment, it states that “you shall not steal”. This meaning that the idea of slavery is an idea of stealing. You steal their identity, because when slaves were employed they were not given names or self-identities. Also, the employers would steal their incomes and use it on themselves because they believed that they should not get paid. Without the changing of the Catechism of the Catholic church, they would still believe that being treated as an object and stealing one's identity is moral because the church does not say anything against it. “No longer slaves but brothers and sisters,” said has said, Pope Francis.

Pictured is the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” which was published in 1994.

https://justiceandpeace.org.au/key-ideas-and-extracts-about-slavery-trafficking/

https://faithmag.com/seventh-commandment-you-shall-not-steal

https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2018/09/18/major-role-catholic-church-played-slavery/

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/

ANTI-SLAVERY: Lauren

Christianity has so much history to it that it is extremely hard to say, “Yes, the Bible was pro-slavery” or “No, the Bible was anti-slavery.” The correct answer to someone asking what the Bible believed about slavery is that it was both pro and anti-slavery. I will be unpacking the anti-slavery side of Christianity. One thing that most people don’t understand is that when the Bible was written, slavery had a completely different meaning, which is why it is hard to come to a verdict on what side the Bible stood. 

Slavery was a completely different concept than it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Old Testament talks a lot about slavery. Throughout the O.T., it is clear that slavery existed. In Deuteronomy 27:7 it says: If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. It is evident that slavery was a thing during these times and that people in Israel were struggling. If we take a closer look at Exodus 21, it flat-out condemns the selling and enslavement of people. Although I am supposed to be talking about the anti-slavery side of things, it is not fair to give information about a Bible that supposedly condemns slavery, when there is so much background and history that get to that point. 

(Enslavement in Israel)

So what changed? Why was slavery okay back then but now, any Christian would immediately be against it? What people fail to understand is that slavery as spoken about in the Old Testament was not race-based at all. What one will see if they dive deeper into what the Bible says about slavery, is that it is condoned in both the New Testament and the Old Testament, but less in the New Testament. The Bible states that everyone is made in the image of God. The slave and the master are equally human and protected in our one in Christ. So yes, although the Bible is condoning slavery, is a completely different version of the slavery that we know today. What the New Testament explains better, is that the Bible's main goal was spiritual redemption, not social reform.  

A lot of times in the Bible, "slavery" refers to being a "slave" to Jesus. "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who is sojourning with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 19:33-34). One of the reasons people say that the New Testament is more anti-slavery is that it talks more about not submitting yourself to slavery for people other than Jesus. So while the Bible is condemning slavery in a way, it still says that you should be a servant and a slave to Jesus, which is completely different than traditional slavery. In Galatians 3:28, Jesus states, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." In Ephesians 6:9 Jesus demands, "Masters do the same to them and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their master and yours is in heaven and that there is no partiality with him.” In Ephesians 6:5, Jesus demands, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ.” 

To conclude our findings, it is fair to say slavery is equally condemned and condoned throughout the Bible and has completely changed over time. The meaning of slavery in the Bible is nothing like the meaning we know today, which is what people fail to understand. There are many different interpretations of what the Bible actually meant by all of these arguments. Religion has played a vital role in the development of slavery, and the Bible has been a critical tool when analyzing if slavery is ethical. 

Sources:

https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-slave-of-christ/

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/slavery-in-the-new-testament

https://emergencenj.org/blog/2019/01/04/does-the-bible-condone-slavery

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-wrong-say-bible-pro-slavery/

The Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court is the most powerful court in the United States. Although the power rests in the public faith, the Supreme Court follows the Constitution. Being someone who doesn't necessarily take interest in this side of politics, I found this video extremely educational and informative. It was very interesting to me to take a deeper look into the three branches of government and the important role each branch has. 

    The judicial branch interprets the laws to decide if they are constitutional. The judicial branch includes local, state, and regional courts. Lower courts can disagree on how a case should be decided. I was unaware that the court has 9 justices who are appointed by the president and approved by the senate. I found it very interesting that these justices serve for life. I found most interesting the explanation of the processes which the court must go through to come to a decision and even argue a decision that has already been made. A decision in the court is made when 4 of the justices, which means the majority, agree on an outcome. The Supreme Court takes on the responsibility of reviewing other cases presented by smaller courts. It receives about 10,000 cases a year but only about 80 are chosen. This small number is extremely selective, as the group only takes the most pressing and important cases.

    So how does one bring a case to the Supreme Court? The case which has been brought to the court had to have been appealed by a lower court in order to make its way to the Supreme Court. At the conference, the cases which have come to the Supreme Court are reviewed and the 9 justices decide if it is important enough to make it to the big stage. Each justice decides their own case and they meet each week to decide which ones will be rejected or denied. The justices then speak about their specific subject in the courtroom where an answer is given. 

(Pictured above are the current 9 justices of the Supreme Court)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx

    The next step is the arguing. The justices have about an hour long "argument," discussing their thoughts on the topic at hand. They ask certain questions about the topic. By having these hard conversations, the court is able to come to a decision or a "verdict." Although a draft of the decision is made, this does not mean the case it put to rest. It is then revisited weeks after the initial meeting, where after having time to think, some justices may switch their opinions. After this meeting, a final draft of the verdict is made and released. 

(Above is a picture from when the draft of the verdict of Roe v. Wade was leaked. People gathered outside of the Supreme Court to protest the verdict.)

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-07439f9fc4542f1500ab78dfd34036b1

    I am not someone who is very interested in politics, but this video gave me such a better understanding of the roles of the people who work in the Supreme Court and why each person is crucial to coming to a final decision. I enjoyed learning more about this topic because I live extremely close to the Supreme Court and have even been inside of it without really knowing its purpose. 

        

The Frederick Douglass Game

    Andrew Jackson was born and raised in the Waxhaws region on the border of North and South Carolina and grew up with a large family that were of Irish and Scottish descent. Jackson identified with the Democratic party and typically consider himself to be someone who is a rule-follower. Some may say that he was nothing but a once poor orphan who has no capabilities of guiding this country into prosperity, but that is not at all what he was according to himself.

    Andrew Jackson was a man who had goals for the country. Jackson sought out mass amounts of land where he could see a white man prosper through his hard work. Jackson's main questions which inspired his want for slavery included these: How is a white man supposed to successfully run this country if he is doing all the labor? What are these soon to be prosperous lands, if there is no one to work them? Jackson strongly believed that people who were call slaves, were put on the earth to work. He stated that white men were supposed to rule, govern, and lead society, and the slaves are meant to handle the rest. He believed the white man must continuously follow the writings of our constitution, and never lose his sense of superiority. The importance of slavery had a lot to do with money for Jackson. He thought slavery was crucial to the prosperity of the country, and said it was a concept he could never envision the world without. Without slavery and slave grown products, he thought our economy would be no where. Things like cotton, rice, tobacco, and others are some of the United States’ largest exports, and those things come straight from plantations. His wealth is highly dependent on the labor of plantation workers and without them, he would've be nowhere near the level of prosperity he was at. Jackson was a firm believer in doing everything by the book as he served as a US congressman, a US senator, and a US Supreme Court judge. He believe a white man must serve his country by strictly following the written constitution, as it is not only a statement, but a series of laws which are not meant to be broken. 

(One of Jacksons slaves, Hannah)

    Any man who claims to be an abolitionist is going against the union. Slavery is the most cost-effective solution for free labor for any white man and a beneficial way to protect one's assets, claimed Jackson. He believe that Negros should be treated with humanity and the master must create a boundary between authority and kindness, and punishment and forbearance. Slaves must be treated as humans so that they are more likely to work hard and not make an attempt to escape. Jackson thought that through slavery, every white man had the opportunity to pay off his debt and that the economy is better than ever today due to slavery. Andrew Jackson had resentment towards abolitionists and said that abolitionist have failed to come to terms with the fact that the slaves are being treated fairly. They have a roof over their head and they get fed most of the time. They also get paid But not in a way that would take wealth away from the white man. These plantation workers don't even need to get paid every day. He personally owned upwards of 150 slaves and claimed his work gets done faster, it was free labor, he made more money, and they listened to whatever he said. He failed to see how any sensible white man can be against slavery it can only benefit his wealth if that was the most important goal. 

(What Jackson's plantation was thought to look like)

    The constitution states that one of its purposes is to promote general welfare so without slavery, aren't we turning against our countries man written law? And an individual who refuses to fend his rights when called by the government to do so deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and a friend to her photo. I leave you with this: who are we? And for what are we going to fight?

Sources:

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/slavery-in-the-andrew-jackson-white-house

https://www.history.com/news/andrew-jackson-presidency-controversial-legacy

https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2014/marchapril/feature/hannah-andrew-jacksons-slave

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42623057#metadata_info_tab_contents