tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6415510452447473916..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Slavery and the Christian Nation ThesisBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56979598758737829612010-04-27T17:37:39.236-06:002010-04-27T17:37:39.236-06:00But Christendom in Europe had eradicated slavery. ...But Christendom in Europe had eradicated slavery. The New World adventurers started it up again. You have to look at the whole picture before you make sweeping condemnations of Christianity.<br /><br />Further, you're arguing theologically, but Channing's response is unanswerable. [Its logic also echoes Locke's analysis of Romans 13, BTW. Yes, I've read up a little bit on these things, but thanks for the advice to do so anyway.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25797175829825597762010-04-27T17:33:51.166-06:002010-04-27T17:33:51.166-06:00.
Manstealing?
.
Does that mean the stealing of a ....<br />Manstealing?<br />.<br />Does that mean the stealing of a man who belongs to another master?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24900361259310121922010-04-27T17:24:42.958-06:002010-04-27T17:24:42.958-06:00Apparently my last reply to Tom was too pithy, so ...Apparently my last reply to Tom was too pithy, so I'll try it again.<br /><br />First, thank you for the links, Tom, as they more than adequately support a couple of my points from my last comment: 1.) Abolitionist views of scripture are very recent (mostly early 19th cenury, though their roots were in the late 18th) phenomena, based on new, anomalous, non-literalist readings of scripture, when they were based on readings of scripture at all. What's more, the proliferation of abolitionist materials in the early 19th century led to laws against teaching slaves to read in many southern states, and you've now linked to many such writings. So, thank you.<br /><br />Those links actually lead to the answer to your manstealing point: manstealing was almost universally considered to refer to <i>kidnapping</i> for the purpose of enslaving, until the abolitionist movement in the late 18th (in England) and early 19th (in the U.S.) centuries. This is why, if you read up on the subject a bit, you will find people being prosecuted for manstealing by the English (and, if I'm not mistaken, the Portuguese as well), while slave trading was legal in these countries! That's also why you'll find a prohibition against manstealing in Jewish law, but legal slavery within Jewish law as well! Manstealing was also illegal in Rome, by the way, though not uncommon. <br /><br />Finally, here is the scriptural text in its entirety:<br /><br /><i>All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.</i><br /><br />The text is clearly exhorting Christian slaves to serve their Christian masters well. If that's not an endorsement of slavery, it's certainly not anything resembling a condemnation of it.Chrishttp://mixingmemory.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1562671978091321102010-04-27T06:38:45.238-06:002010-04-27T06:38:45.238-06:00.
There may not be a "good" place to ask....<br />There may not be a "good" place to ask this question.<br />.<br />But, does anyone have anything to say about the influence the East India Company had on the Founding?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34197767030232448712010-04-26T02:40:16.259-06:002010-04-26T02:40:16.259-06:00So, instead of getting in my face and underfoot, C...So, instead of getting in my face and underfoot, Chris, answer 1 Tim 6. Answer "manstealing." Answer Frederick Douglass. Answer "jubilee." Answer William Ellery Channing.<br /><br />And when you're done that [as if], answer the literally dozens if not hundreds of Christian tracts arguing Biblically against slavery.<br /><br />Here, I'll even make a <a href="http://www.classicapologetics.com/special/slaverevolt.html" rel="nofollow">link</a> so you don't even have to cut and paste the URL. <br /><br />Until then, please get off my back.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73589669234854869412010-04-26T02:25:04.745-06:002010-04-26T02:25:04.745-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54812229140762841622010-04-26T00:58:46.865-06:002010-04-26T00:58:46.865-06:00Tom, nice dodge. You didn't address the other ...Tom, nice dodge. You didn't address the other passages, or do anything with Tim 6:1 (or 2, or 3, or 4), except some hardly definitive quote 1700 years after the fact <br /><br />I don't mind condescension, but know what you're talking about. I've already pointed out enough of your ignorance for one thread, but I will add that you are equally ignorant on the subject of slaves and the Bible. If you weren't, you'd know that through the 18th century, and well into the 19th, the education of slaves in reading (but not writing) was encouraged, and in some cases even mandated, so that they could read the Bible. Converting the slaves was an important goal of those who supported slavery throughout the colonies, and later the states, and teaching them to read the Bible was seen as an important part of that. Reading education was only outlawed when abolitionist materials became widespread.<br /><br />Yours is a nice myth to justify your fairly myopic view of Christianity, though.<br /><br />In conclusion, not knowing anything on the topic except the myths a few quick google searches provide you is worse than not reading the whole discussion (or in my case, dismissing your quotes).Chrishttp://mixingmemory.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43078883640639572972010-04-26T00:11:11.098-06:002010-04-26T00:11:11.098-06:00Sorry, Chris. See the above notes and links, incl...Sorry, Chris. See the above notes and links, including 1 Timothy 6:1, which was addressed. Junky riff. I'm very happy to see you back here, but please take in the whole discussion first. This isn't spaghetti at the wall, or a grenade toss.<br />_________________<br /><br />Brad, I even sent the author an invitation to contribute here. It had the Right Stuff. Still, I got his point and I think faithfully relayed it. I just wanted to give credit to whoever he is and not claim it as an original idea.<br /><br />Although I think the Old South denying blacks literacy and the Bible is most germane here, the racialization of American slavery is no small thing either. At one early point in American history it resembled the Roman or Jewish model applied to caucasians, but then it was perverted into something else unsupported by not only the Bible, but human history as well.<br /><br />I mean, perverted. Paul the Apostle never spoke of race. Indeed, the first convert after Pentecost in the Acts of the Apostles was an ostensibly black Ethiopian, and a eunuch at that.<br /><br />It's quite a beautiful story.<br /><br />http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CPn05Acts08.htm<br /><br />Y'know, Brad, I'm really trying to avoid being a Bible-thumper or preacher around here. I'm a musician with an interest in history. How did I end up with such a dirty job?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60031648150896803802010-04-25T23:27:19.361-06:002010-04-25T23:27:19.361-06:00EXCELLENT point, Tom. Keep looking for that essay...EXCELLENT point, Tom. Keep looking for that essay. It would be worth reading (and even posting here).Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37650444190980107562010-04-25T23:27:09.078-06:002010-04-25T23:27:09.078-06:00Tom, it will fly, because it's true. The probl...Tom, it will fly, because it's true. The problem you're having here is that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you'd have known that the sources of Roman slavery included war, piracy, abduction, criminal conviction, orphans, parents selling their children, and slaves reproducing. You'd also know that the consensus among historians is that, while capture was the primary source for some time (as it had been for most systems of slavery at first), breeding overtook it. The worst form of chattel slavery is the one people are born into. You'd also know that the conditions of many non-house slaves -- working 7 days a week, from before sunrise until after sunset, chained together (sleeping while chained), beaten, etc. -- were hardly better than 19th century slavery. <br /><br />And the New Testament is hardly silent on the issue: Tim 6:1, Luke 12:45, Eph 6:5, etc. At best, you're left arguing that Paul, while sending an escaped slave back to his master, and the rest of the NT authors, only said that slavery should be a kinder, gentler institution. And kinder and gentler is historically relative. This at least tacit, and sometimes explicit endorsement of the institution itself wasn't lost on early Christians like Augustine, who thought slavery a product of sin, to be sure, but supported it as a legal institution, so long as it was Paul's kinder, gentler version.<br /><br /> I understand, of course, that many later Christians, particularly in the 18th and 19th century interpreted scripture differently with respect to slavery (though there were plenty who used scripture to justify it), but with a few exceptions (e.g., St. Patrick), they were an historical anomaly. You can quote these all you like (I know how much you dig quoting), but as you say, it won't fly, except like pigs. Unless you try quoting someone like Seneca or Raphall. <br /><br />I don't think Christianity justifies slavery, and I think that with what Jon calls a "loose hermeneutic," in a very modern mind, can find anti-slavery grounds in Christian scripture, but a literal or strict reading has to conclude that slavery is noted, even discussed, in the NT with nary a word against it and some for it.Chrishttp://mixingmemory.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35480769383658716822010-04-25T22:47:03.139-06:002010-04-25T22:47:03.139-06:00One small point to make: if the Bible doesn't ...<i>One small point to make: if the Bible doesn't support slavery, why were slaveowners so scared to supply their slaves (whom they really wanted to convert to Christianity) with bibles that contained the story of Moses and other slave/bondage/liberation tales? <br /><br />I know that this probably misses the point but I still think it's worth mentioning.</i><br /><br />No, Brad, it's an incredibly major point.<br /><br />I've been trying to re-find [no success so far] a killer essay I ran across written by a non-professional historian, but a Christian and a southerner, which gave him a cred and a POV that many professional secular historians simply lack.<br /><br />Basically, his point was about how certain slaveowners tried to outsmart Christianity by denying their slaves the Bible.<br /><br />See, according to any reasonable interpretation of the Old Testament, Jews could hold other Jews as slaves. It was a political arrangement, and not "chattel" slavery.<br /><br />But every 50 years was a "Jubilee" year, when all Hebrew slaves must be set free. <br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08534a.htm<br /><br />By any reasonable interpretation of the Bible and even by justifying slavery through the Old Testament, surely all Christian Negroes must be set free every 50 years! Leviticus 25, and well the Southerners knew it!<br /><br />The essay also had a nice riff on how slavery in the Old South came to be racially based, unsupported by any Biblical text.<br /><br />As I posted in the other thread, Frederick Douglass made special note of how purposely keeping slaves illiterate kept them away from the Word of the Christian God.<br /><br />Like the Pharisees who used the letter of the law to frustrate what is right and what is good, and what is God's True Will.<br /><br />You sniffed this one out, dude.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79717336197394344022010-04-25T21:56:07.168-06:002010-04-25T21:56:07.168-06:00One small point to make: if the Bible doesn't ...One small point to make: if the Bible doesn't support slavery, why were slaveowners so scared to supply their slaves (whom they really wanted to convert to Christianity) with bibles that contained the story of Moses and other slave/bondage/liberation tales? <br /><br />I know that this probably misses the point but I still think it's worth mentioning. Christian slaveowners did find themselves in a bit of a pickle on this one. Clearly the "spirit" of the Bible's teachings (and Jesus himself) are against slavery, but at the same time you can find plenty of references to justify its existance. <br /><br />Jon is right. It really was a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Fortunately the "good guys" won.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86335605529960189622010-04-25T19:57:22.772-06:002010-04-25T19:57:22.772-06:00Note, Douglass is well aware of the "man-stea...Note, Douglass is well aware of the "man-stealing" Biblical argument.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46367801093447189282010-04-25T19:55:16.210-06:002010-04-25T19:55:16.210-06:00No, that won't quite fly, Chris.
Colossians 4...No, that won't quite fly, Chris.<br /><br /><i>Colossians 4:1 (NASB) Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.</i><br /><br />This all is a tangent to the main point anyway. But this seems as good as any to examine the matter:<br /><br />http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/slavery.htm<br /><br />There's no doubt there were dimensions of Roman slavery that were every bit as bad as the New World colonies [the mines, the Coliseum, whatever], and there's no doubt there were New World occurrences that were as bad as anything anywhere anytime.<br /><br />But it's not supported by the Bible.<br /><br />"What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest, possible difference--so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. <br /><br />The man who wields the blood-clotted cow skin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of each week meets me as a class-leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation. <br /><br />He who sells my sister, for purposes of prostitution, stands forth as the pious advocate of purity. He who proclaims it a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right of learning to read the name of the God who made me. <br /><br />He who is the religious advocate of marriage robs whole millions of its sacred influence, and leaves them to the ravages of wholesale pollution. The warm defender of the sacredness of the family relation is the same that scatters whole families,-- sundering husbands and wives, parents and children, sisters and brothers, leaving the hut vacant, and the hearth desolate. <br /><br />We see the thief preaching against theft, and the adulterer against adultery. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen! all for the glory of God and the good of souls! <br /><br />The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. <br /><br />The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. <br /><br />Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other--devils dressed in angels' robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise."---Frederick DouglassTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71018572854454337942010-04-25T18:42:35.017-06:002010-04-25T18:42:35.017-06:00Ancient Roman slavery was chattel slavery, it was ...Ancient Roman slavery was chattel slavery, it was not primarily about prisoners of war (there was, in essence, a huge slave cast, as large as 1/5 of the population), and while there were differences between ancient and more modern chattel slavery, treatment of ancient slaves, particularly non-house servants, was as harsh as 19th century American slavery in many cases. It's not for nothing that slave revolts were relatively common. And this is, for the most part, the slavery that early Christians and the New Testament authors were familiar with, and in many cases supported.Chrishttp://mixingmemory.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80923591683827865022010-04-25T16:43:46.664-06:002010-04-25T16:43:46.664-06:00Well, to be sure there WERE differences in the sla...Well, to be sure there WERE differences in the slavery of the ancient world and that of the "New World." Sure, slaves have been used in every era as "chattel" but the difference, as David Davis points out in his book "Inhuman Bondage" (one of the best books on the topic, BTW) is that modern slavery had a much stronger racist flair to it, along with being far more severe in its "chattel-ness." One could escape slaver much easier in the ancient world by paying off debts, serving out the sentence or becoming a citizen of the new nation. <br /><br />Now, that doesn't mean that ancient slavery was less "sucky." Chains are chains and whips are whips. But the chattel slavery of the ancient world was not the same as the form that could be found in colonial America (and when I say colonial America I mean from the British colonies in the north to Brazil, and the Caribbean, where chattel slavery REALLY sucked).<br /><br />Not all slavery is the same and we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that it is.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14730416278877779482010-04-25T16:11:33.461-06:002010-04-25T16:11:33.461-06:00Well, OK, although the institution was indeed foun...Well, OK, although the institution was indeed founded on a combination of indebiture or war and crime, I see what you mean.<br /><br />http://manybooks.net/support/b/bradleyk/bradleykother07bitter_chain_of_slavery.exp.html<br /><br />Still, this discussion doesn't hinge on this particular point.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91460545378791706762010-04-25T16:05:08.172-06:002010-04-25T16:05:08.172-06:00I hope I am not being taken seriously in my first ...I hope I am not being taken seriously in my first few paragraphs, as this does not represent my views, only an attempt at analysis.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89794324047305020792010-04-25T16:03:22.530-06:002010-04-25T16:03:22.530-06:00So the Protestant work ethic and American exceptio...So the Protestant work ethic and American exceptionalism is what has driven the "slave trade" today, justifiably? And this is what human rights activists, the U.N., the social Gospel movement and political liberals want to circumvent?<br /><br />Then the method to undermine American exceptionalism and the Protestant work ethic is Marxist ideology, where equality in outcome is a value to be pursued. This way we value the human as "God's creation" and as "humane", so appeal can be made to both the Christian, the political liberal and the humanist?<br /><br />But, what about Ayn Rand and the idea of individual liberty, as the by-product of American exceptionalism?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44730849512725158782010-04-25T15:42:47.099-06:002010-04-25T15:42:47.099-06:00tomdyke: "Chattel" slavery was unheard o...<i><b>tomdyke</b>: "Chattel" slavery was unheard of in New Testament times and cannot be compared to the political arrangement that slavery was in ancient times, a quite humanitarian compromise instead of executing people as war captives or criminals.</i><br /><br />Wrong. <br /><br />Chattel slavery provided the surplus for classical civilization (i.e, Greeks, Romans, etc.…). Many historians wish to to downplay this truth and relish in utopian tales of a heroic age, but the economics of classical civilization was totally fueled by chattel slavery.<br /><br />See noted historian Carroll Quigley for more detail.Naumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741963276339044331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11108381902824787532010-04-25T12:50:27.982-06:002010-04-25T12:50:27.982-06:00True. However, Madison is often trotted out in th...True. However, Madison is often trotted out in these things, but the quotes are always about his opposition to state support of sects. There are no smoking guns about an opposition to Christianity---as opposed to churches---having influence in politics.<br /><br />In his public life, Madison was wishy-washy [or practical] in these things, abiding paid chaplains, a battle he's previously lost at the Founding, and issuing thanksgiving proclamations himself.<br /><br />The next page in the study of the Founding is the immediate post-Founding period, where Jefferson's influence begins to fade away, and men like Justices Marshall and Story begin to take the reins of the nation. [And indeed, the judiciary becomes a full-fledged branch of the government, no coincidence.]<br /><br />Interesting work here by Jim Allison:<br /><br />http://candst.tripod.com/joestor3.htm<br /><br />Where Jefferson takes shots at Christianity and for his vision of religion and politics from the safety of retirement and private letters, Jasper Adams, John Marshall and Joseph Story are quite public about their view.<br /><br />Madison, whose presidency sits astride this period, twists in the wind, practical fellow that he was.<br />_______________<br /><br />As for condemning the New Testament for not being a political tract re slavery, or "Christian principles" not being political enough, that is like blaming a cat for not being a dog.<br /><br />For as Paul the Apostle writes:<br /><br /><i>“Those who are slaves must consider their masters worthy of all respect, so that no one will speak evil of the name of God and of our teaching."</i> (1 Timothy 6:1).<br /><br />The Founding era unitarian William Ellery Channing makes the same argument, quoting Weyland:<br /><br /><i>For if it had forbidden the EVIL, instead of subverting the PRINCIPLE, if it had proclaimed the unlawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves to RESIST the oppression of their masters, it would instantly have arrayed the two parties in deadly hostility throughout the civilized world; its announcement would have been the signal of servile war; and the very name of the Christian religion would have been forgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed. The fact, under these circumstances, that the Gospel does not forbid slavery, affords no reason to suppose that it does not mean to prohibit it; much less does it afford ground for belief that Jesus Christ intended TO AUTHORIZE IT.</i><br /><br />[CAPS are Channing's.]<br /><br /><br /><br />However, before we put Christianity in the docket, we must also admit that <i>reason</i> does not necessarily prohibit slavery either. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=QXWdmmatwA0C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=channing+slavery+bible&source=bl&ots=ZVTFK7i1M_&sig=ZOKTkWOrkMjwAxJi-havvoBclEA&hl=en&ei=xorUS-X1GYeCsgPEv5mtBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=channing%20slavery%20bible&f=false" rel="nofollow">Here's a fascinating tract</a> by James Trecothick Austin [a relative and biographer of Founder Eldridge Gerry] that mocks Channing's religious/metaphysical sentiments against slavery, stating---and quite correctly---that eradicating slavery will necessitate war and blood and national ruin, since it's inextricably woven into the national fabric. And Austin's a New Englander, with no skin in the game except the nation's.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86667081001333931812010-04-25T12:16:31.825-06:002010-04-25T12:16:31.825-06:00I like how Madison didn't fall into Rev. JA...I like how Madison didn't fall into Rev. JA's "trap" to get him to admit the "Christian Nation" thesis.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91096818883882316972010-04-25T11:53:55.345-06:002010-04-25T11:53:55.345-06:00You mean "Harvard Narrative" historians ...You mean "Harvard Narrative" historians who prop up minor figures like Willson instead of far more influential pastors like Jasper Adams, who won the approval of men like Supreme Court Justices John Marshall and Joseph Story?<br /><br />http://candst.tripod.com/jasp2.htm<br /><br /><i>"What must have been the strength of the conviction of Christian Truth in the American mind, when the popular names of Franklin and of Jefferson among its adversaries, have not been able much to impair its influence. May a high reverence and sacred regard for this Heavenly Wisdom remain with us to the end of time, the crowning glory of the American name."</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36142521847053229092010-04-25T11:47:38.088-06:002010-04-25T11:47:38.088-06:00"Chattel" slavery was unheard of in New ...<i>"Chattel" slavery was unheard of in New Testament times....</i><br /><br />I find this very hard to believe.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47560742188290189222010-04-25T11:46:47.392-06:002010-04-25T11:46:47.392-06:00"How important was he in the scheme of things..."How important was he in the scheme of things?"<br /><br />Strangely enough, he was extremely important in the narrative historians adopted that GW & the rest of the notable FFs were not "Christians" but deists, unitarians (i.e., "infidels").<br /><br />Though they mistakenly label him as Bird Wilson, son of James.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.com