I never know where the articles I write might land. The Internet is a great equalizer (pun intended). In years past someone would write an article and the media gatekeepers would determine if it was worthy of their acknowledgment. Providentially, there are fewer gatekeepers today. As a result, anyone with an Internet connection can be a publisher–no ink, paper, or press required. This is mostly a good thing. In the spirit of openness, I’m informing you of an article that was written in response to an article that I had written. Even if you don’t take the time to read the entire article, be sure to read the comments at the end. I’ve put the article in the “for what it’s worth” department.
[iframe http://confederategray.org/2010/03/demars-debacle-on-slavery/ 645 650]
American Vision’s mission is to "Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation." We have been at the heart of worldview study since 1978, providing resources to exhort Christian families and individuals to live with a biblically based worldview.
Friends, Clearly, slavery is a great moral evil, and there is no appealing to the Bible to justify it. Christ came to set all men free, ALL men. Because "God is no respecter of persons", as the Bible says. If some people who sin are made into slaves, while other people who sin are not punished with slavery for there sins, this is an unequal application of the law. Christ came to redeem men from the curse of the law, which is slavery to sin. The law was given that "sin might increase". Salvation in Christ is beyond law and beyond mere punishment and legalism. Clearly, however, justice must be done: that is God's grace and mercy, too. But there are such things as evil white men, and the Confederates of the South were not acting as true Christians act, or would act, but as malicious, evil bigots (racists). In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
If no one is arguing that "slavery in America was carried out by a society of evil white men, hell-bent on depriving innocent and noble blacks of an honest living in Africa" then, I've certainly misunderstood the implication of pop-egalitarian and anti-Southern rhetoric. And, for the record, I wasn't banging an "unnecessary emotive drum" but rather, was re-stating (inaccurately apparently) a position.
I apologize for my misunderstanding Mr. Marinov, and hope you join me in condemning anyone who would try to characterize the south in that way.
As for the subject of where slaves originated from…American Vision provides some great materials to help clear up this controversy:
http://www.americanvision.com/warbetweenthestates…
In the book, the authors mention that illegal slave-capture was a rare thing, and the average Southern slave owner would have no reason to doubt the legality of his slave's origin.
Shotgun says: "So, the question is: Was the institution of slavery in America carried out by a society of evil white men, hell-bent on depriving innocent and noble blacks of an honest living in Africa?"
I am curious if Confederate Gray would use against your statement the same rhetoric he uses against Gary DeMar:
"…drumming up emotional points with these four clauses. . . . Beating this emotive drum reeks of liberal tactic."
Indeed, your statement is full of emotive drum-banging: "evil white men," "hell-bent," "innocent and noble blacks," "honest living."
When we scrap the unnecessary emotive rhetoric from your reply – as Gray Confederate recommends in Gary's case – and we decide to go back to clear arguments, my reply is this:
No, this is not the question. You are either deliberately lying or you see in the debate something that is not there. No one argues that "slavery in America was carried out by a society of evil white men, hell-bent on depriving innocent and noble blacks of an honest living in Africa." Try to read Gary DeMar's article and see what the real question is.
Mr. Incredinex,
The law of our pagan society is irrelevent when speaking to the principle of slavery.
For a Biblical case of restitution, I suggest a look at Gary North's chaper on the subject in "Victim's Rights."
Biblically, the onus is never laid on the ignorant owner of stolen goods. When ignorant of the dubious origin of his purchase, the buyer is due restitution from the thief.
So, the question is: Was the institution of slavery in America carried out by a society of evil white men, hell-bent on depriving innocent and noble blacks of an honest living in Africa?
I don't buy it…
Siegfried, "The burden of the law would be against the one who stole the crown jewels and then fraudulently passed them off as legitimate." Well, in the US, "If the individual didn't know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted." (Wikipedia) So, it seems the appropriate action is: "If you really want to treat a man well who was stolen from his home (1) set him free, (2) send him back, (3) or adopt him, but don't pretend that continued enslavement is a righteous act." Nonetheless, in the crown jewels hypothetical, one is not found innocent of possession of stolen goods, only that their effective sentence is lighter in the case of ignorance (i.e. return the goods). Even at that, I seriously doubt that anyone trying to use this line of reasoning to rationalize their own slave is ignorant of the status of the "goods".
The people who knowingly purchase stolen goods are guilty of theft. Talk to any pawn shop owner. Watch a few episodes of "Pawn Stars" on the History Channel. There was an episode where a man brought in a hat from a Soviet military officer. The man pawning stated that he had stolen it. His admission killed the deal. Americans knew that these Africans were stolen from their homes.
If you really want to treat a man well who was stolen from his home (1) set him free, (2) send him back, (3) or adopt him, but don't pretend that continued enslavement is a righteous act.
Mr. Marinov,
It is understandable to see how our article may have been confusing on that point. Mr. Himmel's response is worth reading, but allow an elaboration.
Certainly, taking innocent little Africans is wicked man-stealing and condemned by God. Our point is that DeMar is wrong to categorically dismiss all instances of slave purchasing from Africa as such. This was mentioned earlier in the piece as an hasty generalization, and that's how to read the objectionable line.
Many slaves were stolen, making the purchases wicked,. Yet, some were taken as war captives (the Africans were heavily fighting among themselves), making the purchases lawful (Leviticus 25:44-46).
Mr. Marinov,
I agree that Confederate Gray was confusing at that point, but I understood his argumentation to be that Americans who bought and owned slaves were not man-stealers…precisely because they had not stolen anyone. This would be in agreement with Dabney, whom the article approvingly cites. Dabney condemned the slave trade as a grave sin, but did not believe that Americans who owned slaves shared in its guilt if they treated the slaves well.
I would also like to point out that some of the Scottish Covenanter's rounded up in Scotland during the years of persecution were sold into slavery in America; I am sure the great reformed theologians of that time thought slavery to be wicked. If anyone has any info, please let me know.
I am bit confused here. Gray Confederate seems unhappy with Gary DeMar's statement that the African slaves were kidnapped and sold in slavery. He even calls it a "lie":
"DeMar’s debacle on slavery leaves the uninformed reader believing the lie that slavery practiced in this country prior to 1860 is properly categorized “man-stealing” as innocent little West Africans were kidnapped . . ."
But I can't see what his alternative explanation is. If taking African slaves from Africa to America is not man-stealing, what else is it? Does the author claim that millions of West Africans voluntarily sold themselves in chattel servitude? Did they voluntarily paid for their tickets to sail overseas?
This is not the way to argue. If you attack the main point in someone's argument, you have to have an alternative to it. If you don't, you better shut up.
Actually, incredinex, I would expect most people to have mercy on you if you bought the jewels unknowingly. The burden of the law would be against the one who stole the crown jewels and then fraudulently passed them off as legitimate. But your other points are well-argued.
Though I respect DeMar's work on historical subjects, Confederate Gray's response made salient points, and exposed the egalitarian squeamishness that infects most Christians today. And I don't get the hyperventilating rhetoric coming from some people about it. Folks, if you want to debate race issues, make actual arguments. "I am right and you're an evil racist who should repent" doesn't count as an argument.
Read the comments at the end. Your right that say's it all.
Well, yeah, sure the Bible institutes slavery into the Hebrew culture (or at least standardizes it) and never criticizes it per se. But these were all (supposed to be) God lovers and those who love their fellow man (slave or not). Today, we have society filled with God haters and man haters. I would not endorse slavery under any of today's societies because of the atrocities it has been demonstrated to inspire. On the other hand, it would make a viable alternative/deterrent to bankruptcy…might help the economic situation…still I would have to oppose it.
One thing I disagree with is that the people who own stolen people as slaves multiple sales down the road are innocent. If someone stole the crown jewels of England and I bought them (somehow unbeknownst to me that they were stolen) third hand, who is going to have mercy on me for possession of stolen goods. Is a man less valuable than rocks?
I Googled the article at the other website Mr. DeMar is referring to and left this comment which must be approved:
"Actually in this case Gary DeMar is correct and has my utmost respect for taking a truly Biblical approach to the subject of slavery. May he stand firm on the solid rock called Christ Jesus and may those in error repent."