Thread: Dabney and slavery

Back to Dabney.

Dabney once wrote that he was happy to acquire a young slave because he would conform more readily to beatings.

Originally Posted by SRoper

Back to Dabney.

Dabney once wrote that he was happy to acquire a young slave because he would conform more readily to beatings.

Where did he write that? I read his book "in defence of Virginia" where he talked about his 18 servants. He said (if memory serves me) that he administered physical punishment on 2 occasions for adultery and fornication.
Please provide a link if possible.

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

Hermonta, I'm looking at it from a different perspective. Whether harsh treatment of slaves was the norm or not does not justify the practice.

It neither justifies nor condemns. I was however assuming that since there have been on condemnations concerning slavery in and of itself, that people on this thread had accepted that such could in fact be Godly.

That would be like comparing kind drug dealers to ruthless ones.

First one would have to make the argument stick that slavery is akin to drug dealing along the lines of "evil always".

I don't view antebellum slavery as amoral.

There is almost nothing on earth that is amoral.

But you bring up a larger question. Is there a difference between pre-antebellum slavery and antebellum slavery? It depends on the definition of slavery. The slavery I am referring to is forced and unwilling. A person who is taken against their will and forced into the service of another. I believe there is a difference between slavery and indentured servitude. I have yet to see slavery presented in a positive light in scripture, at least not forced slavery. Even in Exodus 21, slavery was never meant to be permanent.

Actually in some cases in the OT, slaves could be handed down to the next gen, but that was only in the case of those captured in war (or so I remember). However a clean case can be made that such practices were special to Israel. That if my memory serves me was one of Dabney's key errors.

What does all of this have to do with Dabney? Not much in the larger scheme. But let me tell you what I have pulled out of this discussion. We should challenge the social norms of our day and examine them in light of scripture.

Most definitely.

Just because something is normative according to society does not mean it is obedient to scripture. There is nothing we can do about Dabney or any other Christian who owned, or was sympathetic to slavery. But we can take stock of our own lives and make sure we are not guilty of jumping on the bandwagon of the world.

I think the one thing to remember when thinking of Dabney and his defense of Virginia etc, was the substantial anti-Christian element in the abolitionist movement. That sometimes can cause some to overcompensate, in their counterattack, and let some evil things go in order to beat the "greater" evil.

CT

It appears that in Lev. 25 brother Hermonta that bondmen could be bought from the heathen nations and be kept for generations:

Lev 25:44 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.
Lev 25:45 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.
Lev 25:46 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: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Originally Posted by Blueridge reformer

It appears that in Lev. 25 brother Hermonta that bondmen could be bought from the heathen nations and be kept for generations:

Lev 25:44 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.
Lev 25:45 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.
Lev 25:46 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: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Oh please do not say you are excusing the peculiar institutions that defined American slavery! Nt

Originally Posted by SRoper

Back to Dabney.

Dabney once wrote that he was happy to acquire a young slave because he would conform more readily to beatings.

This might show that even the most reformed in doctrine, need continual reformation -- by God's grace through faith!

Originally Posted by bwsmith

Oh please do not say you are excusing the peculiar institutions that defined American slavery! Nt

No one is excusing or condemning anything. Just reading scripture.

Two snippets by C. N. Willborn on Dabney.
Robert L. Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy (Dallas, Tex.: Naphali Press, 2004) Preface by Willborn, 7-8. This book is offered in the PB book review section.

Outside a certain theological circle today, Dabney is probably best known as an apologist for the antebellum Southern culture. A Defense of Virginia and Through Her of the South was written at the end of the War and defended slavery as a Biblical institution. Furthermore, he sought to prove the benefits of the peculiar institution for the eco*nomic and moral condition of the South. For many his support of sla*very and certain views of the African culture, render him a racist and, thus, unsuitable for intellectual consideration. With the large racist tag dangling in front of their eyes, Dabney’s detractors have often missed the broader implications of the very complex Southern cul*ture he espoused. It was a culture centered on family and familial affections. Honor, patriotism, nobility, and commitment to a repre*sentative constitutional government were all marks of the civiliza*tion. Still, many have truncated “the Cause,” as the Southern culture has been called, so as to define it as a racially-blinded class of ogres.

Like so many of his Southern contemporaries the racist stereotype has rendered Dabney virtually worthless to several generations of theological students, social theorists, and churchmen. Unfortunately, with the bath water (dingy as it may be), the church and intellectual community at large has dispensed with a first-class theologian, edu*cator, socio-political commentator, and philosopher. For the theologi*cal student and pastor, Dabney’s Systematic Theology provides a very able defense of a moderate Calvinism and confessional orthodoxy. His Discussions (now available in five volumes) provide a broad sam*pling of his productivity on subjects like public education, science, politics, ministerial training, economics, and philosophy. Under the locus of philosophy the reader will find further stimulating reading in The Practical Philosophy. The material for this book came largely from his lectures to his University of Texas students and was prepared for publication in 1896. According to T. C. Johnson, Dabney considered this to be his best book.

Next to The Practical Philosophy, Dabney considered The Sensualis*tic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century Considered (1875 and 1887) as his ablest work. He was, not unlike a number of very able eighteenth and nineteenth century theologians, a practitioner of Scottish Com*mon Sense Realism. Yet, he has recently been described as an eclectic in his utilization of the Common Sense Philosophy. Certainly he was no slave to a philosophical system that was in his day in substantial flux. Still it is accurate for categorization to label him a Common Sense Realist. As a Scottish Realist he held tenaciously to “that class of truths known as primary cognitions, innate ideas, [and] first truths.” Dabney held these “first truths,” to be “faith assumptions,” to borrow from Dr. Douglas Kelly. As such, the “first truths” influ*enced and shaped human reasoning. Furthermore, Kelly likened Dabney to Cornelius Van Til in the way he consistently showed how non-theists “reasoned on the basis of unproven, faith assumptions.”[1]

[1]Douglas Kelly, “Robert Lewis Dabney,” in Reformed Theology in Amer*ica, ed. David Wells (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 220.



The Confessional Presbyteriian, 172-175
Review: Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2005). Hardcover, 295 pages. $24.99. Reviewed by C. N. Willborn, Professor, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Another positive side of this work is the handling of Dabney and the black population. Here the reviewer enters into very lonely ground. Many friends no doubt will disagree; many who thought they disagreed with the reviewer will be pleasantly surprised. Dabney was wrong in his view of the Africans brought to America through slaver trade, as Lucas argues. Until the end, Dabney insisted that they were inferior to his Caucasian ancestry and contemporaries. Unlike his South Carolina friends and co-laborers, John L. Girardeau and Thomas Peck, Dabney did not believe that a black man could ascend to majority status in society. A black man could never be qualified to fill the office of Pastor in Dabney’s world. Girardeau demurred from his friend. Prior to filling Thornwell’s shoes as the theologian at Columbia Seminary, Girardeau had labored among the slaves and free blacks of Charleston. He built a church for the black population that numbered over a thousand in membership and witnessed thousands in attendance every Lord’s Day. Girardeau ordained black ruling elders in 1869 and agitated for integrated churches as soon as possible. It was Girardeau who held out to the end (1875 General Assembly) for the Southern Church to withstand segregation along the color line. The action of the 1875 Assembly for “organic separation” was to Dabney’s liking. One must think that Dabney would have been a better man had he followed Girardeau in his view of blacks and their ability within the church. p. 174.

Originally Posted by Blueridge reformer

No one is excusing or condemning anything. Just reading scripture.

Then I am not sure why you interjected it? nt

So, even the best need reforming?

Originally Posted by bwsmith

Then I am not sure why you interjected it? nt

He was responding to my claim that under some circumstances in the OT concerning Israel, people could own slaves indefinitely.

CT

Originally Posted by bwsmith

Then I am not sure why you interjected it? nt

I was adding to brother Hermonta's post just above it. Read it.

Originally Posted by SRoper

Back to Dabney.

Dabney once wrote that he was happy to acquire a young slave because he would conform more readily to beatings.

Page number? I have a copy of Defense of Virginia on my desk. I grant that he could have said that, but that's a pretty hefty charge to throw at someone.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

He was responding to my claim that under some circumstances in the OT concerning Israel, people could own slaves indefinitely.

CT

imho, there was no comparison between the OT practices, and the grim institution that stained the 16th-19th centuries -- and still corrupts many nations today.

Originally Posted by bwsmith

imho, there was no comparison between the OT practices, and the grim institution that stained the 16th-19th centuries -- and still corrupts many nations today.

Amen! How can anyone justify the European-American slave trade? To take people from their homeland for the sole purpose of profit was a heinous act. To compare slavery and indentured servitude during the Old Testament with antebellum slavery is like comparing an apple with a rock.

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

Amen! How can anyone justify the European-American slave trade? To take people from their homeland for the sole purpose of profit was a heinous act. To compare slavery and indentured servitude during the Old Testament with antebellum slavery is like comparing an apple with a rock.

I don't think anyone here has tried to justify the Euro-American slave trade. The slave trade is indeed a blot on our history and is a blot on those who participated in it. That said I don't think it lessens the value of Mr Dabney's work. Everyone has their flaws. Augustine left a woman with whom he had fathered a child when he should have married her instead, but this doesn't diminish the value of his writings. All it serves to do is remind us that, like us, he was a sinner in need of grace. I think we can extend the same thought to Dabney as well.

(The thing that gets my goat about any discussion regarding slavery is that they always get to the point where someone is implying, "South bad, North good!" That simply was not the whole story the issues were much more convoluted than that.)

As far as this thread goes I think it's starting to .

Originally Posted by MrMerlin777

(The thing that gets my goat about any discussion regarding slavery is that they always get to the point where someone is implying, "South bad, North good!" That simply was not the whole story the issues were much more convoluted than that.)

Honestly Donald what is fascinating to me is the chips on some Southerners shoulders here. Nobody even brought up "South Bad, North good" except the Southerners who perceived persecution at the mention of Dabney's name. Now we're bringing Augustine into it. This discussion would have gone a lot more quickly if people would simply deal with the question and stop justifying sinful behavior by comparing Dabney with other sinners.

Some ought to consider themselves fortunate that I don't throw some of the logic they're using here back in their face in Political threads when they're roundly condemning party spirits in current events!

Originally Posted by MrMerlin777

. . .
(The thing that gets my goat about any discussion regarding slavery is that they always get to the point where someone is implying, "South bad, North good!" That simply was not the whole story the issues were much more convoluted than that.)

As far as this thread goes I think it's starting to .

That's why reading Harriet Beecher Stowe's __Uncle Tom's Cabin__ and the Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin is so useful!

As is reading __The Minister's Wooing__

As far as this thread goes I think it's starting to

I wonder why? Could this thread be stepping on toes that don't like to be stepped on?

This thread wasn't started to criticize the South. I wanted to see how far the veneration of past theologians would go (yes, I'm using the word "veneration' tongue-in-cheek). Could you imagine if this thread even hinted at a criticism of Stonewall Jackson or Robert E. Lee? I'm quite sure veins would be popping out of some PB members heads.

Brethren, there is a point to all this. Read the words of Paul:

I find these words sobering. I have my own favorite preachers and theologians. I have to remind myself they are mere men. As so, it is not a question of whether they have sinned. They have. The question is, who receives the glory for the work they have done? It we truly believe in Soli Deo Gloria, then we will be careful in how we treat our heroes of the faith.

Let me share a few thoughts on King David. David was a man of great faith and of great sin. When I think of David, I cannot separate his victory over Goliath from his sin against Uriah. I see the man, warts and all. I praise God for David's deeds that were wrought in faithfulness, and I praise God for the mercy He displayed to David in the face of terrible sin. Both sides of David's life deserve attention, for God gets the glory in all.

How does this connect with Dabney? By all accounts he was a man of great faith and knowledge. He was also a man sympathetic to a repulsive practice. Does Dabney's stance on slavery negate what God accomplished through the man for good? Not at all. Neither did David's act of adultery and conspiracy negate the great things God had accomplished through his life. Dabney had warts too. More than likely he has less warts than I do. But God is glorified even in this.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Honestly Donald what is fascinating to me is the chips on some Southerners shoulders here. Nobody even brought up "South Bad, North good" except the Southerners who perceived persecution at the mention of Dabney's name. Now we're bringing Augustine into it. This discussion would have gone a lot more quickly if people would simply deal with the question and stop justifying sinful behavior by comparing Dabney with other sinners.

Some ought to consider themselves fortunate that I don't throw some of the logic they're using here back in their face in Political threads when they're roundly condemning party spirits in current events!

I'm not justifying sinful behavior in my post. I merely stated that like Augustine, Dabney was a sinner, (Like all of us). I don't see where that deminishes the value of his writings. Does that not answer the question of the OP? In spite of the obvious blot on Mr Dabney's record, his writings are still of value.

I mentioned the South Bad North Good thing because most arguments I've seen regarding slavery have gone in that direction. I admit to not having seen that here. A fact which makes me feel even better about the people that I have the privilidge of knowing through this board. That said I don't think the Southerners here were getting defensive I think they just want to keep the story straight. (ie Wanting to know where Dabney's quote is regarding the young slave/beatings thing etc)

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

Does Dabney's stance on slavery negate what God accomplished through the man for good? Not at all. Neither did David's act of adultery and conspiracy negate the great things God had accomplished through his life. Dabney had warts too. More than likely he has less warts than I do. But God is glorified even in this.

No toe stepping going on as far as I'm concerned brother. I believe I've already given my perspective on the OP.

Dabney's position on slavery was sinful, period. Now, that said, I don't believe it deminishes the value of the man's writings.

BTW I realize that you are not trying to cause a South/North skirmish brother.

BTW I realize that you are not trying to cause a South/North skirmish brother.

Nah. I'll save that for another thread.

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

Does Dabney's stance on slavery negate what God accomplished through the man for good? Not at all. Neither did David's act of adultery and conspiracy negate the great things God had accomplished through his life. Dabney had warts too. More than likely he has less warts than I do. But God is glorified even in this.

No toe stepping going on as far as I'm concerned brother. I believe I've already given my perspective on the OP.

Dabney's position on slavery was sinful, period. Now, that said, I don't believe it deminishes the value of the man's writings.

Is God glorified by Dabney's possition on slavery? I say no. Is God glorified by the wealth of theological knowledge one may attain from Mr Dabney's writings? I say yes. Could someone concievably try to justify a blot on history because of the fact that this man was a great theologian and yet supported slavery? Certainly, but I think it would be a rarity.

BTW I realize that you are not trying to cause a South/North skirmish brother.

Originally Posted by Blueridge reformer

Where did he write that? I read his book "in defence of Virginia" where he talked about his 18 servants. He said (if memory serves me) that he administered physical punishment on 2 occasions for adultery and fornication.
Please provide a link if possible.

You can find the reference in Lucas's biography. I believe it is from Dabney's personal journal.

Interesting book on Dabney's friend: Stonewall Jackson

Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Interesting book on Dabney's friend: Stonewall Jackson

Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend

Looks interesting.