I’ll try to keep this quick.
I’m looking for information about bible slavery. Particularly old-testament slavery.
In every discussion I’ve heard of late on this topic, the apologists’ argument seems to centre around how old testament slavery was vastly different to, say, southern US antebellum slavery – it involved fixed terms of seven years, it was humanitarian in that an injured slave was to be released, and a slave-owner that killed a slave was to receive the death-penalty for doing so, etc etc. There are a lot of differences, there’s no doubt about that. But….. it doesn’t seem to be to be telling the whole story.
The problem, for me, and the information I’m looking for, is based around the fact that I think, really, that they’re throwing up a curtain with this, and talking only about the way Israelites were to treat EACH OTHER in such an indentured servitude arrangement. Apologists can go on and on about that, with loads of biblical references to back them up.
All from Leviticus:
14 “‘If you sell land to any of your own people or buy land from them, do not take advantage of each other….
25 “‘If one of your fellow Israelites becomes poor and sells some of their property,….
35 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you,….
39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves….
The offensive part of Leviticus, though, does not have to do with Israelite slaves. In fact, that last quote there is, I think, very telling. I don’t know the Hebrew well enough to know what word has been translated as “slaves” there, but if it’s the same word as is translated into this NIV passage, then I think we have a red flag.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Surely by including this passage, the author of Leviticus is singling out the Israelites for ONE set of human rights, and foreigners for another. These foreigners CAN be made slaves for life, and bequeathed as property – just don’t do that to EACH OTHER!
I think you know where I’m going with this, but I’ve spent the last two hours looking for some kind of scholarly writing dealing with this, and google scholar doesn’t seem to want to help me. I’m looking for something that takes into account the difference in treatment between Israeli “indentured servants”, as apologists never tire of calling them; and foreign slaves, who are basically fucked for life, or so it seems in verses 44-46. Very much like southern-US antebellum slaves. It certainly has some nasty overtones, doesn’t it?
Can anyone point me towards some good writing that deals specifically with this contrast? It must be out there somewhere. Again, yes, I have things to say in video form about this, and I don’t want to screw anything up. I need a proper understanding of this and some good citations to boot.
I’d be in your debt if you could help me out by hitting me up with a link or two.
NSC
39 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Tony Sidaway
December 29, 2012 at 1:51 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
This article seems like a good place to start. Several different forms of slavery are identified, and the article discusses the biblical laws and customs to relating to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
The article is short on scholarly authorities, sadly, but it may help a bit.
Paul D.
December 29, 2012 at 2:22 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
The magnum opus on slavery in the Bible is “Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship” by Hector Avalos.
Link: http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=181
Avalos also discusses the subject and his book in an article at Bible and Interpretation:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/ava358013.shtml
marf
December 29, 2012 at 2:54 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
The http://www.biblegateway.com is a great resource. At the bottom of the English list is someone’s literal translation and it makes distinctions, apparently, between servant, hireling, etc. It has a search function (SO much better than the concordance!) and a side-by-side feature (I haven’t used yet).
I use this all the time!
Jubal DiGriz
December 29, 2012 at 3:45 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
There are a couple of fairly good scholar-quality summaries.
From the Jewish Virtual Library Encyclopedia http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0018_0_18703.html:
Hebrew Slaves
“A Hebrew could not become a slave unless by order of the court (for which see under Criminals, below) or by giving himself voluntarily into bondage (for which see under Paupers, etc., below; Yad, Avadim 1:1). Other slaves were always recruited from outside the nation. It has been opined that the epithet “‘eved ‘ivri,” and the laws relating to Hebrew slaves (Ex. 21:2–6) would apply also to such non-Jewish slaves as were born into the household as the offspring of alien slaves (see, for instance, Saalschuetz, Das Mosaische Recht (1853), ch. 101)…Hebrew slaves serve six years only and must be freed in the seventh (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12). “And when thou lettest him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go empty; thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing floor, and out of thy wine-press; of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee” (Deut. 15:13–14; and see *Ha’anakah). This short period of bondage conditioned the price of slaves: there is some indication of their market value in the provision that if an ox killed a slave, the owner of the ox must pay 30 shekels of silver to the master of the slave (Ex. 21:32). Whatever the master may have paid for the slave, “It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou lettest him go free from thee; for to the double of the hire of a hireling hath he served thee six years” (Deut. 15:18). If the slave refuses to go free and wishes to stay on in his master’s service, then the master pierces his ear with an awl and in this way the slave is bonded to him forever (Ex. 21:5–6; Deut. 15:16–17). If a Hebrew slave has been sold to an alien, he must be redeemed at once; he then enters into the redeemer’s service, which terminates with the jubilee year (Lev. 25:47–54)”
Alien Slaves
“Of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondwomen. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy and of their families that are with you which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession’ ” (Lev. 25:44–45)…Alien slaves serve in perpetuity: ‘Ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession, of them ye may take your bondmen forever’ (Lev. 25:46). The same rule would appear to apply to prisoners of war.”
Another good source is the venerated Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13799-slaves-and-slavery
The content is essentially the same. Hope this helps.
chrislrob
December 29, 2012 at 5:11 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Submitted without endorsement, but you might try Gary Lee Roper’s “Antebellum Slavery: An Orthodox Christian View”. It argues that American slavery was consistent with the bible. Again, I know little about the book. I only skimmed it, but it is available in Google Books online as a sample that seems to be the entire 300-page work. Roper is clearly a neo-Confederate -type, but from what I saw, the book is a fairly sane view of biblical slavery.
I think there is little doubt that the bible endorsed American slavery. So that makes it kind of hard for me to endorse the bible.
robertcargill
December 29, 2012 at 5:14 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
nonstamp,
Definitely check out my Iowa State colleague, Hector Avalos, and his work on ‘biblical’ ethics. I’m also working on a chapter in my upcoming book (The Christian Guide to Gay Marriage), where I examine the social regulations regulating ‘biblical slavery’. One parallel that is often overlooked is the passage in Deut. 21:10-14, which differentiates (slightly) between war captive, wife, and slave:
Essentially, if you see a cute woman among the captives (whose father and brothers you supposedly just killed in battle), you may take her as your wife (literally by giving her a requisite month to mourn, and then ‘going into her’ and ‘making her your wife’. HOWEVER, if at some point in the future, you become dissatisfied with your newly captured wife, you may dismiss (divorce) her, BUT you cannot sell her, that is, you cannot treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her (you know, by ‘going into’ her and treating her as a ‘wife’). It’s an interesting passage because it differentiates between wife and slave, placing a woman captured during war who was subsequently forced to become the conqueror’s wife ABOVE a slave in the Israelite hierarchy.
You’re welcome to email me offline if you’re interested in any of this. Cheers.
bob cargill (xkv8r)
NonStampCollector
December 30, 2012 at 2:01 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Thanks for going to the trouble, friends. That certainly helps.
I might make this my next video, the one I’ve been working on just isn’t going well. THis one is a nice snappy simple idea that I just want to get right.
chrislrob
December 30, 2012 at 3:18 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
NSC, you’d do a great job with the part about how a fellow Israelite is enslaved for a term of years after which he must be set free, BUT if he marries a fellow slave during his captivity, he still MUST leave, but he can’t take her (or any children) with him! However, if he really doesn’t want to leave, he can simply agree to remain a slave forever. No biggie.
Mike D
December 30, 2012 at 8:40 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Like most things in the Old Testament, I think you’ll have a hard time finding much historical work on it. I’m not even sure to what extent the commands in Hebrew law such as those mentioned were even widely practiced. Popular perception is that the law ruled the land, but I’m not aware of any independent evidence of that. Maybe ancient Israel had its religious nuts just like today.
p.s. – Topical but shameless self-promotion:
http://www.theaunicornist.com/2012/10/an-atheist-reads-true-reason-chapter-15.html
robertcargill
December 30, 2012 at 11:09 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Also check out the comments on the post here: http://robertcargill.com/2012/05/07/would-billy-graham-encourage-you-to-vote-for-slavery/
My responses to a couple of apologists detail some of the arguments chrislrob makes above.
coragyps
December 30, 2012 at 11:14 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I have an ancestor, name of Joseph Junkin, D.D., who was a college president and anti-secessionist in Virginia in the 1850′s. He wrote several books, including one that my family has a copy of: ” A Catechism, Especially for the Instruction of Coloured Persons”. What it instructed said “Coloured Persons” to do was to follow the guidance of Scripture – and memorize the verses, too – in being good submissive slaves to their masters. Dr Junkin certainly didn’t see any significant difference between bible slavery and antebellum Southern slavery – and if he deplored maltreatment of his contemporary slaves, I haven’t seen where he wrote it down.
bobo
December 30, 2012 at 11:43 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I am just posting this here to vent, but I had an argument with a fundamentalist who waved away slavery by saying that:
“slavery was part of a covenant between god and his people – the story of the jews and their lord, and who are we to judge.”
And I could not say anything in reply. How can one argue tripe like that???
David Olsen
December 31, 2012 at 2:04 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Leviticus 25:44-46
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.
You are of course right, there is a massive distinction between debt slavery such as one Jew would enslave himself to another Jew in order to buy his daughter or some land for a limited amount of time. Though, in exodus there’s a procedure involving a building door and a nail that converts debt slaves into permanent slaves if they don’t want to lose their wife and kids.
But, ultimately you can cut through all the apologetics and people saying “they want to be slaves” or “they are enslaved due to punishment it’s like prison, we make prisoners work.” — By noting that it permits the institution of slavery right there in Lev. 25. You may own them. They are your property. Their children are your property. You man own them forever. You may give them to your children as inheritance. — No amount of apologetics digs out of that hole. The Bible says in no uncertain terms at all that one person may own another person as property forever and their children forever and their children’s children, as your property.
There’s no amount of conflating the law code and the classes of slaves that wishes that away. Sure, it says you should let a believing slave go from time to time and shouldn’t treat them that rough and can’t beat them to death that very same day, but ignore all that it says that you as a person may own another living human being as property… FUCK THAT!
sleeper
January 1, 2013 at 11:23 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
NSC demonstrates the ability to research and delve into subjects in a methodical fashion… except when it comes to his greenhorn defense of A+ with admitted ignorance of many of the facts. Well its understandable that he wants to impress his new found friends. To bad he didn’t exercise the same diligence in research before he began spewing in public.
NonStampCollector
January 2, 2013 at 3:27 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
The streets of the internet are covered thick with the vitriolic splashes of vomit that I’ve been throwing out there about Atheism+. I’ve spent so much time and effort defending Atheism+ that I’ve barely had time to neuter myself in accordance with the FtB rules. Please don’t tell my overlords.
Kevin
January 2, 2013 at 10:51 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I think you could also benefit by doing some reading on the “modern” institution of slavery.
In the United States, there was the “capture black people and hold them and their progeny forever” type of slavery. Equivalent to the “taking slaves from other lands” Biblical slavery.
But there was ALSO “indentured servitude”, which was primarily for white people. Basically, people agreed to serve someone without compensation for a period of time in order to get passage to America. That’s the “Jewish slaves” Biblical slavery.
Thing is, the second kind of slavery was as bad or worse than the first. The vast majority of indentured servants either died — largely from starvation and abuse — or ran away before their term of service expired.
So, the apologetic notion that the slavery in the bible was “different” because it was indentured servitude is just a whole lotta crapola. And especially the notion that the indentured servant was somehow in a “kinder, gentler” form of slavery.
Ba-lo-ney.
Slavery was slavery. Then and before then. The arcs of the two forms were parallel. And both were abolished at the same time in the US. (And earlier in Great Britain — though I don’t know about the entire Empire.)
chrislrob
January 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Kevin,
I agree that indentured slavery sucked, too. But your comment that “slavery was slavery” is ba-lo-ney. It is a false equivalency of the highest order, and, despite my efforts to resist, offensive to me. Without even checking, I highly doubt that the “vast majority of indentured servants died –largely from starvation and abuse…”, can you give me a cite for that?
And linking “died” and “ran away” is like my arguing that, “Every single black slave died of unnatural or natural causes.” It is most likely true, but it is useless.
To actually say indentured servitude was “as bad or worse” than slavery is just comical. I won’t even go into the multiple differences since you seem to think that suffering for a period of years is equivalent to suffering until whenever you *die*…
Hey, Kevin? A man or woman *choosing* to sign up for something is not in the same position as someone FORCED to do so. Will you concede that?
Tomas, doubter at large
January 3, 2013 at 8:05 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
The Jerome Biblical Commentary is a good and quick resource to have when it comes to pulling apart Bible passages. In regards to vs. 45, the big issue the Israelites were having with this notion of the Jubilee/Sabbath year, was what to do about the non-Israelite slaves. Do those slaves count even though they don’t practice the Sabbath? In vs 53 and 54 in Leviticus, you’ll find what was prescribed in how non-Israelite slaves should be treated.
Interestingly, there is no other Old Testament reference to the actual practice of this Jubilee. Some scholars believe that Ch. 25 was created much later, perhaps after the Babylonian captivity, and then added on to Leviticus.
Kevin
January 3, 2013 at 9:54 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
So, you’re saying that a woman who agrees to emigrate for a job but instead is forced into the sex slave trade is “asking for it”?
Read for comprehension.
I said that the indentured servants were treated every bit as badly as the “sold” slaves. They were abused just as much, killed outright, or they escaped prior to their term of servitude being over.
Nothing in there about how “asking for it” means they deserved their treatment.
So, kindly fuck off and do your own homework. There’s plenty of material on the subject matter.
chrislrob
January 4, 2013 at 1:11 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Kevin,
Maybe I misunderstood. I’ve tried to do my homework, but can’t find anything. Maybe any suggestions you could make would help NSC in making a future video. Can you direct me to some good sources on American indentured servitude? What sources did you use in responding to me? Thanks.
hypatiasdaughter
January 6, 2013 at 12:42 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
#6 robertcargill
This passage has always puzzled me.
It may have been giving permission for a single man to take an enemy woman as a wife and require that she be taken into the Israelite community and be given all the rights of a Israelite woman, rather than treated as a foreigner. It would have been fairly “liberal” outlook from a peoples who were protective of their bloodline and didn’t generally assimilate non-Jews.
(I’m not saying that it makes it O.K. to force a captured woman into marriage, just that it it is unusual attitude for Jews to take.)
It makes me wonder if the “enemy” at the time it was written may have been other Jews, rather than “foreigners” i.e. people not descended from Abraham.
Xe
January 6, 2013 at 3:43 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
You should check out http://www.blueletterbible.org (i think theres and iphone app too). Look up a verse, then, to the left of each verse are a few blue buttons. Click on the blue button with the white “C”. It will show you, word for word, the original greek or hebrew. You can click on each for definitions and roots. Hope that helps
David Olsen
January 6, 2013 at 11:30 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
There are a wide varieties of different types of slavery from children and wives, to debt slaves, to slave slaves, in the Bible and getting these distinctions through to a theist requires theists to understand distinctions. If we could convey such points easily we might be able to easily convey how absurd their religion is in the first place. That’s why I strongly adhere to KISS. Keep it simple stupid. The Bible says you can own other people. That they are your property and that you can give them to your kids and that you own their kids forever. That people are your property and that is hunky-dory by the Christian god.
Nuance is great, if you want to know the difference between debt slavery of other Jews done to purchase one of your daughters. Sure, my daughters are my property and you can work for seven years for me to buy her from me because you don’t have the money outright. But, nuance is hard to get through thick skulls and the Bible says you can own other people. Start there and end there.
kantalope
January 7, 2013 at 5:01 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Bible scholarship for finding the truth? I don’t get that…at all.
Worldcat.org
Slavery throughout history. Almanac
Author: Theodore L Sylvester; Sonia Benson
Three volumes of the history of slavery. Although I can’t tell if there is specific section on Israel.
But I’m guessing that you will have better luck with historians than with apologetitians or whatever they call themselves.
Since the Romans were in charge at the time – slavery history ancient rome gets some hits too…
BradC
January 8, 2013 at 2:38 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Are you going to put up a thread about your Unbelievable appearance?
I enjoyed that, and have a few thoughts about it…
steven dimattei
January 8, 2013 at 6:20 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Nonstamp,
I have looked on several occasions for your email. Alas, I’ll post a message. Take a look at this new site: contraditions in the bible . com. This was pluged yesterday on the thinking atheist, and I received a good 3,000 visitors. Would like to increase that even more, and am asking your help. Give the site a look. I promise you will be pleased. It’s top notch biblical scholarship — nothing on the web like it.
cheers,
Steven
RMC
January 9, 2013 at 6:20 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
A search for slavery on Project Reason’s Scripture project yielded some good results.
http://www.project-reason.org/scripture_project/
NonStampCollector
January 10, 2013 at 12:10 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Thanks again for excellent sources, friends.
This will certainly be the next video, and when I devote some time to it, I’ll be very grateful for your help here.
Thanks very much
NSC
Rhee,el
January 12, 2013 at 10:48 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Please post something new
eleutheria
January 15, 2013 at 3:18 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
For what it’s worth, I was arguing slavery with a christian on Reddit and he docdropped this source list on me. They don’t _appear_ to be overly christian apologetic.
http://christianthinktank.com/bookabs.html
and word search for “Slavery”; there are 4 or 5 useful books.
David Olsen
January 16, 2013 at 3:16 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Also, pretty please, do note that since it says that one person can own another person in plain black and white that you really don’t need to fight over the minutia. You get to own people, forever, and you own their kids and you can give them to your kids, etc. If treating slaves better was the only goal of abolitionists they should have just waited. Slavery in the 1850s and 1860s was much more benign and peaceful than slavery in the 1830s and 1820s. Conditions were improving. — But, somehow that doesn’t seem a good argument for why one person can own another person forever and sell off their children etc.
Drewbot
January 16, 2013 at 6:56 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I think you should do what Cartman did, go to the local University Athletic Director, and ask him how he manages to have slaves in this day and age. NCAA athletes are basically indentured servants to their school’s athletic program.
Drewbot
January 16, 2013 at 7:00 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/387407/stu-dent-ath-o-leets
See above post
steve oberski
January 16, 2013 at 10:18 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
From the Autobiography of Mark Twain page 212:
In my schoolboy days I had no aversion to slavery. I was not aware that there was anything wrong about it. No one arraigned it in my hearing; the local papers said nothing against it; the local pulpit taught us that God approved it, that it was a holy thing, and that the doubter need only look in the Bible if he wished to settle his mind – and then the texts were read aloud to us to make the matter sure; if the slaves themselves had an aversion to slavery they were wise and said nothing.
Yahweh Noweh
January 20, 2013 at 4:04 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I hope this thread isnt dead. NSC you are a genius. Apologies in advance for the 2 short tnagents but they may have significant value to you. Now, with that out of the way…
As I was reading your entry and the responses something hit me. Something that is very relevant in a roundabout sort of way (if that makes sense) and it seems to me the type of juxtaposition that you do so exceedingly well in your vids. I was wondering about how the supposed bible (another potential topic for a vid…I hate how people refer to THE bible. It is as presumptuous as changing the word god to mean yahweh… you know, like when yahwehites ask “do you believe in god?” what they MEAN is do you believe in MY alleged god named yahweh. But they use that insidious linguistic trick to give their position more strength, and we unfortunately allow them to get away with it. They do the same thing when they talk about THE bible – as if there were such a thing. difft yahwehites claim difft texts are from the alleged god called yahweh…. phew that was quite a tangent) tells people to treat animals. This may give you some insight, since the alleged bible says that the alleged god yahweh says to treat animals better than human slaves.. here is a bit from Billy Graham’s website…(I added the allegedlys to show how different it would be if we refused to accept their assertions when conversing with people who follow the alleged being named yahweh.
“The alleged Bible commands us to take care of the animals under our care. One of the signs of a righteous man, the alleged Bible says, is that he takes care of his animals (see Proverbs 12:10). Even the animal of an enemy was to be treated kindly: “If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him” (Exodus 23:4). One reason this alleged God commanded His people to rest one day out of seven was so their animals would be refreshed (see Exodus 23:12).
In fact, the alleged Bible says we must never treat any part of our alleged God’s creation with contempt. When we do, we are indirectly treating our alleged Creator with contempt. Instead, our alleged God calls us to be stewards or trustees of His alleged creation, and the alleged Bible reminds us that we are responsible to Him for the way we treat it. We’ve often forgotten this — but it’s still true, and when we ignore it we not only hurt our alleged God’s creation but we also hurt ourselves.
All 3 things may be off topic (1: how the alleged bible say to treat animals, 2: there is no such thing as THE bible 3: we should use “alleged” in front of every ridiculous assertion made by yawehites (think about how reporters would be seen as irresponsible if they did NOT say “The alleged criminal allegedly stole the watch”) But I hope they are useful to you … if not in the vid re slavery, then for some future reason. In my you tube videos I talk about the importance that we rationalists must use when discussing alleged gods with irrationlists (aka yahwehites) (my words for what most people call christians) . Enjoy life. Yahweh Noweh
Lucy Booker Roper
March 5, 2013 at 1:03 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Antebellum Slavery: An Orthodox Christian View by Dr. Gary Lee Roper — 350 pages
Rob
March 7, 2013 at 7:17 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I love how Christians compare slavery to the Bible, which was under Jews, to slavery in the US, which was under Christians.
NoAssume
March 18, 2013 at 8:09 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I think that even slavery of non-Israelites under the Bible was more like slavery in the Hellenistic world than in the antebellum South US, the latter being a bit unusual for its scale and level of dehumanization. Not sure though.
David Olsen (@Tatarize)
March 19, 2013 at 4:22 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Antebellum slavery was cruel but generally improving. It was slavery less as a luxury and more as a way of subsistence. It’s actually a worthwhile point to make but hard to actually decide which forms throughout history were the worst and which were allowed by the Bible. The best way to cut through any of it is still simply by noting that Deuteronomy says that one person can own another person forever, and own their children and give them to his children as inheritance. If simply depravity of slavery was an argument one would need to worry less about the 1860s slave than the 1830s, and could admonish one conscious with the rather continuing improvement of conditions during that time. The Peculiar Institution of American slavery was rather exceptional, but slavery at it’s core, regardless how kind or well-meaning is an evil, and its an evil that reading the Bible would see the chains of the slave forged in the furnaces of heaven.