The Great Stain

by Noel Rae

  Upbringing. “The Virginians,” wrote the visiting German naturalist, Johann Schoepf, “are an indolent, haughty people whose thoughts and designs are directed solely towards playing the lord, owning great tracts of land and numerous troops of slaves … They pass the greatest part of the summer on soft pallets, attended by one or several Negroes to ward off the flies, light pipes, and proffer punch, sangry, toddy or julep.” The young people “grow up without much literary instruction, which they either have small occasion for or hold to be superfluous. A Virginia youth of 15 years is already such a man as he will be at twice that age. At 15 his father gives him a horse and a Negro, with which he riots about the country, attends every fox-hunt, horse-race, and cockfight, and does nothing else whatever.”

  “The whole commerce between master and slave,” wrote Jefferson in Notes on Virginia, “is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it … The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions; and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances.”

  As an example of the truth of this observation, here is part of a letter to the abolitionist Theodore Weld, dated January 3, 1839, and written by John Nelson: “I was born and raised in Augusta County, Virginia. My father was an elder in the Presbyterian church, and owner of about twenty slaves … When I was quite a child, I recollect it grieved me very much to see one tied up to a tree to be whipped, and I used to intercede with tears in their behalf, and mingle my cries with theirs, and feel almost willing to take part of the punishment. I have been severely rebuked by my father for this kind of sympathy. Yet, such is the hardening effect of such scenes, that from this kind of commiseration for the suffering slave I became so blunted that I could not only witness their stripes with composure, but myself inflict them, and that without remorse. One case I have often looked back to with sorrow and contrition, particularly since I have been convinced that Negroes are men. When I was perhaps fourteen or fifteen years of age, I undertook to correct a young fellow named Ned for some supposed offense—I think it was leaving a bridle out of its proper place. He, being larger and stronger than myself, took hold of my arms and held me, in order to prevent my striking him. This I considered the height of insolence, and cried for help, when my father and mother both came running to my rescue. My father stripped and tied him, and took him into the orchard, where switches were plenty, and directed me to whip him. When one switch wore out, he supplied me with others. After I had whipped him a while, he fell on his knees to implore forgiveness, and I kicked him in the face. My father said, ‘Don’t kick him, but whip him.’ This I did until his back was literally covered with welts. I know I have repented, and trust I have obtained pardon for these things.”

  Cotton. From being a minor business at the end of the eighteenth century, cotton became the country’s most important export—two million bales in 1791; ten years later, following the introduction of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, which increased productivity by a factor of fifty, exports were eighty million bales; in 1831 they were three hundred and fifty-four million; in 1851, seven hundred and fifty-seven million; and on the eve of the Civil War, one billion, three hundred and ninety million bales—two thirds of all the cotton grown in the world.

  Most of the exports went to Great Britain, then the world’s leading industrialized country. By 1850 more than half of all British exports consisted of cotton goods. The price of raw cotton varied, but the general trend was upward, and between leaving the plantation and ending up as someone’s clothes, cotton employed a vast network of middlemen—bankers, brokers, insurers, shippers, spinners, distributors, retailers. Because demand kept growing, there was a constant push to acquire new land suitable for cotton; and because a principal requirement was a climate that provided two hundred days free of frost, this push led to the Seminole Wars in Florida, the annexation of Texas, the war with Mexico, various one-sided treaties with Indian tribes, and plans to take over Cuba and Nicaragua.

  The demand for slaves also kept rising, pushing up prices—in 1800 the cost of a young man on the New Orleans market was $500, in 1860 it was $1800. Women slaves known to be good “breeders” also fetched a high price; as Jefferson wrote in 1820 to his son-in-law, John Epps, “A woman who brings a child every two years is more valuable than the best man on the farm.”

  It was axiomatic among growers that cotton plantations could be worked only with slave labor. As the American Cotton Planter put it, in 1853: “The slave labor of the United States has hitherto conferred, and is still conferring, inappreciable blessings on mankind. If these blessings continue, slave labor must also continue, for it is idle to talk of producing Cotton for the world’s supply with free labor.”

  Another popular opinion was expressed by David Christy in his 1860 book, Cotton is King: “By the industry, skill and enterprise employed in the manufacture of cotton, mankind are better clothed; their comfort better promoted; general industry more highly stimulated; commerce more widely extended; and civilization more rapidly advanced than in any preceding age.”

  Religion. Out of the more than three quarters of a million words in the Bible, Christian slaveholders—and, if asked, most slaveholders would have defined themselves as Christian—had two favorites texts, one from the beginning of the Old Testament and the other from the end of the New Testament. In the words of the King James Bible, which was the version then current, these were, first, Genesis IX, 18–27:

  “And the sons of Noah that went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole world overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.”

  Despite some problems with this story—What was so terrible about seeing Noah drunk? Why curse Canaan rather than Ham? How long was the servitude to last? Surely Ham would have been the same color as his brothers?—it eventually became the foundational text for those who wanted to justify slavery on Biblical grounds. In its boiled-down, popular version, known as “The Curse of Ham,” Canaan was dropped from the story, Ham was made black, and his descendants were made Africans.

  The other favorite came from the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, VI, 5-7: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.” (Paul repeated himself, almost word for word, in the third chapter of his Epistle to the Colossians.)

  The rest of the Old Testament was often mined by pro-slavery polemicists for examples proving that slavery was common among the Israelites. The New Testament was largely ignored, except in the negative sense of pointing out that nowhere did Jesus condemn slavery, although the st
ory of Philemon, the runaway who St. Paul returned to his master, was often quoted. It was also generally accepted that the Latin word servus, usually translated as servant, really meant slave.

  As the daughter, sister and mother of ministers, and wife of a theologian, Harriet Beecher Stowe was unlikely to have underestimated the importance of the clergy. “There is no country in the world where the religious influence has a greater ascendancy than in America,” she wrote. “No country where the clergy are more powerful”—so powerful in fact “that no statesman would ever undertake to carry a measure against which all the clergy of the country should unite.” What effect, then, did the clergy have “on this great question of slavery?” Denomination by denomination, she reviewed their record.

  “The Methodist Society especially, as organized by John Wesley, was an anti-slavery society, and the Book of Discipline contained the most positive statutes against slave-holding. In 1780, before the church was regularly organized in the United States, they resolved as follows: ‘The conference acknowledges that slavery is contrary to the laws of God, man, and nature, and hurtful to society; contrary to the dictates of conscience and true religion; and doing what we would not others should do unto us.’” In 1801 it was declared “that we are more than ever convinced of the great evil of African slavery, which still exists in these United States.” Members were urged to collect signatures for petitions asking legislatures to end slavery. But then, “in 1836, let us notice the change. The General Conference held its annual session in Cincinnati, and resolved as follows: ‘That they are decidedly opposed to modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave.’” The same year “the New York Annual Conference voted that no one should be elected a deacon or elder in the church unless he would give a pledge to the church that he would refrain from discussing the subject.” In 1847, after the Methodists had split North and South, the Philadelphia Annual Conference reminded its members of “the question that we have been accustomed, for a few years past, to put to candidates for admission among us, namely, ‘Are you an abolitionist?’ And without each one answered in the negative, he was not received.”

  (It was the opinion of the abolitionist Stephen Symonds Foster, author of The Brotherhood of Thieves: or, A True Picture of the American Church and Clergy “that the Methodist-Episcopal Church was more corrupt and profligate than any house of ill fame in New York—that the Southern ministers of that body were desirous of perpetuating slavery for the purpose of supplying themselves with concubines—that many of our clergymen were guilty of enormities that would disgrace an Algerine pirate …”)

  Mrs. Stowe then considered the Presbyterians. In 1818 their Assembly declared that “it is manifestly the duty of all Christians … to use honest, earnest, unwearied endeavors to correct the errors of former times, and as speedily as possible to efface this blot on our holy religion, and to obtain the complete abolition of slavery throughout Christendom and throughout the world.” Less than twenty years later, hoping to avoid a north-south schism, the Assembly resolved “that this whole subject be indefinitely postponed.” Southern Presbyterians, however, were less willing to compromise and the Harmony Presbytery, of South Carolina, passed this resolution: “That as the kingdom of our Lord is not of this world, His church, as such, has no right to abolish, alter, or affect any institution or ordinance of men, political or civil. That slavery has existed from the days of those good old slave-holders and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (who are now in the kingdom of heaven), to the time when the Apostle Paul sent a runaway home to his master, Philemon. That … the existence of slavery itself is not opposed to the will of God.” In 1843 the Assembly resolved that they did “not think it fit for the edification of the church for this body to take any action on this subject.” And when the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was passed, “What,” asked Mrs. Beecher, “said the Presbyterian Church?” Answer: “She said nothing!”

  Next, the Baptists. In 1835 the Charleston Baptist Association declared that the question of slavery was neither moral nor religious. It was “a question purely of political economy. It amounts in effect to this: Whether the operatives of a country shall be bought and sold, and themselves become property, as in this state; or whether they shall be hirelings, and their labor only become property, as in some other states.” And so, since slavery was “a question purely of political economy,” and not of morality, it followed that “the State of South Carolina alone has the right to regulate the existence and condition of slavery within her territorial limits.” And in the meantime, “the right of masters to dispose of the time of their slaves has been distinctly recognized by the Creator.”

  Mrs. Stowe also explained why the northern clergy, who generally disapproved of slavery, were so ineffective. “The slave power has been a united, steady, uncompromising principle. The resisting element has been, for many years wavering, self-contradictory, compromising. There has been, it is true, a deep and ever-increasing hostility to slavery in a decided majority of ministers and Church-members in the free States, taken as individuals.” But faced with “the perfect inflexibility of the slave system, and its absolute refusal to allow any discussion of the subject,” they had retreated. When they met in convention, instead of confronting the great moral issue of their time, they debated such matters as “whether a man might lawfully marry his deceased wife’s sister,” and whether “promiscuous dancing”—i.e. men dancing with women—should be allowed. (The Presybterians’ answer to the second question was No—such dancing was “entirely unscriptural” and “wholly inconsistent with the spirit of Christ.”)

  But perhaps there would be a place for slaves in the newly formed Mormon Church? At first it seemed that this might be possible, for did not the Second Book of Nephi, Chapter 26, Verse 33, say that the Lord God “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female?” And had not Joseph Smith himself, soon after translating the mystical golden plates, ordained Elijah Abel, a former slave, and Walker Lewis, a free black? On the other hand there was the story in the Book of Mormon of how the Lamanites, who had once been “white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome,” had “hardened their hearts against Him,” and as a punishment “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people.” (2 Nephi 5: 21, 22.) And, following the trek out to Utah, Brigham Young declared that “The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.”

  As to other religions, Quakers did not allow their members to own slaves, but did little to persuade others to follow suit. Catholics were still only a minor presence in this country. And finally, when it came to Episcopalians, Mrs. Stowe dismissed them out of hand. “As to the Episcopal Church, it has never done anything but comply, either North or South.”

  This was a bit unfair, as ever since its founding one of the functions of the Church of England, the parent of the Episcopal Church, had been to support the established order. To comply was not a failure; it was an obligation. An example of how this worked in practice comes from Harriet Jacobs, who was a household slave living with a doctor’s family in Edenton, North Carolina.

  “After the alarm caused by Nat Turner’s insurrection had subsided, the slaveholders came to the conclusion that it would be well to give the slaves enough of religious instruction to keep them from murdering their masters. The Episcopal clergyman offered to hold a separate service on Sundays for their benefit.” The meetings were held not in the church, but in the house of a free black.

  “When the Rev. Mr. Pike came, there were some twenty persons present. The reverend gentleman knelt in prayer, then seated himself and requested all present who could read to open their books, while he gave out the portions he wished them to repeat or respond to. His text was, ‘Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singl
eness of your heart, as unto Christ.’

  “Pious Mr. Pike brushed up his hair till it stood upright, and in deep, solemn tones began: ‘Hearken, ye servants! Give strict heed unto my words. You are rebellious sinners. Your hearts are filled with all manner of evil. ‘Tis the devil who tempts you. God is angry with you, and will surely punish you if you don’t forsake your wicked ways. You that live in town are eye-servants behind your master’s back [i.e. you work only when watched]. Instead of serving your masters faithfully, which is pleasing in the sight of your heavenly Master, you are idle, and shirk your work. God sees you. You tell lies. God hears you. Instead of being engaged in worshiping Him, you are hidden away somewhere, feasting on your master’s substance, tossing coffee-grounds with some wicked fortune-teller, or cutting cards with another old hag. Your masters may not find you out, but God sees you, and will punish you. Oh, the depravity of your hearts! When your master’s work is done, are you quietly together, thinking of the goodness of God to such sinful creatures? No; you are quarreling, and tying up little bags of root to bury under the door-steps to poison each other with. God sees you. You men steal away to every grog shop to sell your master’s corn, that you may buy rum to drink. God sees you. You sneak into the back streets, or among the bushes, to pitch coppers. Although your masters may not find you out, God sees you, and He will punish you. You must forsake your sinful ways, and be faithful servants … If you disobey your earthly master, you offend your heavenly Master. You must obey God’s commandments. When you go from here, don’t stop at the corners of the streets to talk, but go directly home, and let your master and mistress see that you have come.’”