Jump to content


Recommended Posts

Can someone tell me the author and title of a book, please?

Banner of Truth publication. Subject is a defence of slavery.

I remember reading it many years ago and being horrified by the arguments.

Thank you.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure, but here is an article saying that believers were not supposed to try and change culture, that neither Jesus nor the disciples pushed for social programs or were anti-slavery. https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2018/reweaving-the-culture/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks Fuego.

Your link led me to the answer. It was a sermon by Robert Dabny "Ecclesiastical Equality of Negroes, Nov. 9, 1867" in which he states, amongst other repugnant beliefs,

“an insuperable difference of race, made by God and not by man, and of character and social condition, makes it plainly impossible for a black man to teach and rule white Christians to edification” (201)

“I greatly doubt whether a single Presbyterian negro will ever be found to come fully up to that high standard of learning, manners, sanctity, prudence, and moral weight and acceptability which our constitution requires” (202).

“Now, who that knows the negro does not know that his is a subservient race; that he is made to follow, and not to lead; that his temperament, idiosyncrasy and social relation make him untrustworthy as a depository of power?” (203–4).


The article I found is 'What’s So Bad About Robert Lewis Dabney?' Quote: 'he influenced his entire Southern Presbyterian denomination in this speech to not grant equality in the church to black preachers. ' and the article points out that modern evangelicals have ignored this side of his preaching.


He was well thought-of at the Bible College I attended many years ago.


Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 2:36 AM, nontheistpilgrim said:

Can someone tell me the author and title of a book, please?

Banner of Truth publication. Subject is a defense of slavery.

I remember reading it many years ago and being horrified by the arguments.

Thank you.



The book is authored by Hywel R. Jones.




From my readings of the book synopses, this book did not condone slavery, only that where slavery was legal or permitted, that slave owners must follow the guides concerning owning slaves given in the Old and new Testaments.  Also that slaves must follow the rules of their masters to survive and have an afterlife in heaven. Here is an example:


Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master. Similar statements regarding obedient slaves can be found in Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10.




The most well-known of these arguments was that those who are non-Christian, will be better off being well-treated Cristian-taught slaves than being non-believers, aka infidels, never permitted in heaven. This was an argument of the Christian crusaders who took slaves in Arab and Turkish lands.


Their have been both secular and religious arguments condoning slavery in the past and present not involving the Bible. One of the best know of these was Nietzsche's wrings.




Other ideas concerning the "positives of slavery" in the past, and some in the present, have been attempts to justify slavery. Virtually every civilized country today agrees that slavery is inhumane, degrading and wrong, but since for much of history many people defended it, it may be  important for some, to demonstrate why it's wrong.

Trying to justify slavery

A number of arguments have been put forward to try and justify slavery. None of them would find much favor today, but at various times in history many people found some of these arguments entirely reasonable, especially Biblical and other religious justifications as explained above.

It's natural that some people be slaves

This argument says that some people are slaves as part of the natural order of humanity and of the universe, and it is wrong to interfere with this by abolishing it.. But if this argument was to be used then, most agreed that there should have been some way of distinguishing natural slaves from those who should not be enslaved. Without such a method, most agreed that injustice is sure to occur. In today's thinking no such tests are possible, although past cultures thought there were such tests.

Slaves are inferior beings

This argument says that even if slavery was cruel and degrading, black slaves are not mental equals therefore their sufferings are not necessarily more ethically different than the sufferings of domestic animals, and that there should be compassion for all black slaves-- but that some well-treated slaves are better off than they would have been as free men and women.


It's better to be enslaved than killed


History: Like tribal areas and kingdoms all over the world in recorded history, warfare was a certain part of life. Most often these wars were over land/territory, booty of the vanquished, and continuing tribute/taxes. In Africa this was the case as it was all over the world at the time. One tribe would kill another over disputed or desired territory. Often all warring men of the defeated tribe were killed, and some women, children, and older people sometimes were captured and enslaved by the victor, and the desired land and booty taken. Also, when tribal laws were broken, violators were often killed, sometimes imprisoned or enslaved by their own tribe. In time instead of imprisoning or killing law violators, tribes found ways to sell their criminals as slaves. In time, some tribes realized that the way to more territory and wealth, was not to kill the neighboring tribes in warfare, but where possible to enslave them, their women and children, and sell them as slaves since it was becoming very profitable for those warring and conquering tribes to sell enslaved captives rather than kill them. A number of African tribes also became nomadic for a while just to capture other Africans and sell their land and their captives as slaves for big profits.


Centuries before, it might be noted that this also happened concerning the Vikings taking slaves, mostly women and children as part of their booty, and often selling these captured whites as slaves to slave traders of those times. This also happened between warring white kingdoms concerning selling captured women and children and selling them and others to slavers that would buy and sell them.


Most American black slaves were first captured by black tribes of west Africa and sold to the Portuguese. Other countries that bought black slaves from such enslaving tribes from African coastal areas, in order of their volume of purchases, were: The Portuguese, English, French, Netherlands, Spanish, the Americas, Denmark and the Baltics.


A great many African tribes and "nations such as the Bono State, Ashanti of present-day Ghana and the Yoruba of present-day Nigeria, initiated and were involved in capturing, and the buying and selling of slaves. Groups such as the Imbangala of Angola and the Nyamwezi of Tanzania would serve as intermediaries for roving bands, waging war on other African tribes and states, capturing Africans to sell and export as slaves."


Slavery and endenshired servants are still "legal" or often ignored in a number of parts of the world today. Estimates of slave percentages today are as follows: *North Korea has the world's highest rate of slavery, with about one in 10 people enslaved, followed by Eritrea (9.3%) Burundi (4%), Central African Republic (2.2%), Afghanistan (2.2%), Mauritania (2.1%), South Sudan (2%), Pakistan (1.7%), Cambodia (1.7%) and Iran (1.6%). This does not include a large number of voluntary endenshired servants and slaves that continue as non-paid, disciplined servants because of coercion, and because some or many believe it is a better life than severe poverty without employment.

Jul 30, 2018.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can believe anything. Mankind may be somewhat rational, but wholly believing with staunch conviction up to death, yes. Equality or lack there of. People today believe women are men and men are women, or that there there aren't men and women, or inventing gender as separated from sex but still the same thing.

  We're the same, just attached to different stories.

   I mean, for many ancient peoples slavery was not indicativ of inferiority in humanity. They were basically war captives. Like riday with prison labour. Some turkish slaves became de facto rulers in the arab world for example.

   Human rights are also a story. Our "disgust" is also educated. You are disgusted by dog meat but not pork because of education not inherent in the meat. Same with moral disgust

    Don't get me wrong. There is reason, there is philosophy, there are innate characterristics . But usually narratives trump philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, nontheistpilgrim said:

My OP stated that the article was about slavery. In fact I was wrong, it was about the belief that black people are unequal and inferior, as I stated in my reply to Fuego.

Thank you.


The OP black slave posting then was coincidental with Martin Luther King day in the US, cool ! ... with sympathetic thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.