Philemon was a Christian brother who lived in Colossae, Asia Minor (Turkey). The apostle Paul was imprisoned in Rome where,by God’s providence (Phile. 1.1) he met a runaway slave named Onesimus. It so happened that Onesimus was a slave to Philemon, with whom Paul had been closely associated in Christian fellowship. What then occurs is instructive to all.
Paul sent Onesimus back to his owner Philemon with the inspired cover letter in the New Testament by the same name. After introductory matters, the apostle begins in (v. 8) with Accordingly, though I have all boldness in Christ to enjoin [command] you to do that which is proper … Paul is asserting he can be more assertive that he is presently.
But instead, he writes (v. 9), because of love’s sake, I would rather encourage you as Paul the elder. What is the essence of Paul’s encouragement? I beg you for my child, whom I have begotten in my bonds, Onesimus (v. 10). The prisoner of the Lord recognizes that Onesimus was “once unprofitable to you [Philemon] (v. 11), but now, because of his conversion to Christ, he is profitable to you and to me.
Now comes the key point. Paul says, I have sent him back to you … (v. 12), but at the same time I would like to have kept him with me that in your behalf he might minister to me in the bonds of the gospel; but without your approval I would do nothing.
The word “approval” in my translation above is from the Greek word (gnome) which is “purpose, intention, mind, mind-set, opinion, opinion, judgment, approval.” In other words, Paul needed Philemon’s agreement to have kept Onesimus on in Rome as his assistant. Note that the apostle considered the slavery of Onesimus still binding.
Slavery is an institution at variance with the gospel of Jesus Christ. As one writer puts it, the principles of Christ “cuts up slavery by the roots.” “The principles of the gospel worked into the conscience of a nation destroy slavery.” However, the institution of slavery has imbedded itself in nearly every society and culture in the world. Instead of overturning society by upheavals or riotous behavior, the gospel of Christ works like leaven upon not only the hearts of men, but upon societies and cultures (Matt. 13:33).
Changing a person begins with the heart and works outward in behavior (Matt. 12:33). Changing society is much the same. It is gained one heart at a time, not by taking a wrecking ball to a culture to overturn what is despised.
In 1 Corinthians 7:20 Paul gives us further insight into the question of slavery. Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. That is, whatever life situation you may find yourself in, so remain in Christ. One does not come to Jesus Christ to be removed from a physical situation. Were you called being a slave? Care not for it; even if you can be free, use it rather! (ASV). Colloquially the text reads: Even if you were called into Christ being a slave—don’t worry about it. Use your slavery – that is, for Christ. The word “use” has often the sense of “undergo” or “endure.” That is, “use your slavery” for Christ.
The central point here is that there are greater questions of import to men’s souls than whether they are slaves or not, or descendants of slaves or not. The chief question is a spiritual relationship with God. Would that America would learn this simple truth from Paul’s letter to Philemon.
The 1619 Project, sponsored by the New York Times, is a series of essays and multimedia creations designed to “reframe American history” by claiming America’s founding is based on racism and slavery instead of freedom and liberty. The chief writer for the project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, calls white people “savages” “bloodsuckers” and “murderers” who used Christianity as an excuse to enslave different peoples of the world. Her vitriol, which seems to know no bounds, is now being picked up by many others who are concerned about slavery in America’s history.
A slave is considered to be a person owned by another, without rights, and—like property—to be used and disposed of in whatever way the owner may wish. 1The Encyclopedia of Religion defines slavery as “[A] social and industrial system in which the person and labor of one individual may be disposed of as the property of another.” 2
Setting aside Hannah-Jones’ ignorant vilification of “white people” as the sole perpetrators of this institution, as well as her abysmal lack of knowledge of American history, what is particularly concerning here is that she assails the Bible in her diatribes as somehow teaching the practice of chattel slavery.
What Does the Bible Actually Teach Regarding Slavery?
Moses writes by inspiration that are human beings are created in “the image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6). Of all the philosophies of the world, this Divine assertion alone gives all men and women equal dignity. All persons are equal in value to one another. Life itself is a gift of God.
Placing man in the Garden of Eden, God ordered him to “dress the garden and keep it” as well as to “eat of the fruit” which he gathered (Gen. 2:15). These commands imply freedom as well as the right to property. “Thou shalt not steal” is built into the very foundations of the created order.
From these simple premises it is easy to see that God never intended one human being to be the property of another. However, as is the case with polygamy which departed from the marriage institution that God created (Gen. 2:24)— mankind departed sharply from God’s design.
Separated from God men have concocted many schemes which ignore these plain biblical ideals, particularly regarding the value of human life. Aristotle, for example, developed the theory that some persons were servile by their very nature. 3 The school of philosophy known as Stoicism later considered slavery as a mere accident of fortune and therefore it was not a just cause about which one could complain.
The ancient world was actually steeped in slavery, whether it be the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman world—all practiced slavery. As Everett Ferguson writes, “Slavery was pervasive in ancient civilization.” Thomas C. Edwards, in his superb commentary on the book of 1 Corinthians, notes that the practice of slavery actually sprang from a rejection of God’s Word regarding the dignity of man. “Slavery was an institution that sprang from other fundamental ideas—namely, the superiority of men over women; the religious preeminence of Jew over Gentile; the Greek consciousness of creative political genius …” 4 It was the devaluing of human life that brought about slavery.
1 The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 1462. 2 Ed. Vergilius Ferm, p. 714. 3 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 854 4 Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 182.
Slavery was almost universally practiced in all cultures during Old Testament times. Men and women were enslaved by capture in war (1 Sam. 4:9) or by purchase (Gen. 17:12-13, 27). The Law allowed Hebrews to purchase slaves from foreigners at home or abroad (Lev. 25:44ff). Children born “into the house” of slave-parents were evidently called “house-born slaves” (Gen. 17:12-13).
Interestingly, slavery could be entered by other methods as well. God legislated that if a convicted thief could not make “restitution” and pay his damages and/or fines, money could be raised for this purpose by selling him as a slave (Ex. 22:3). This law showed that slavery involved the production or labor of a person was considered to be his property, which now became the property of the one wronged.
The insolvent debtor, as well as his family, became enslaved to the creditor (2 Kings 4:1). It was also possible for one to sell himself and his labor to escape poverty (Lev. 25:39-43).
However, there are some important considerations that the Old Testament includes. First, in the case of the insolvent debtor, he was not to be treated as a chattel slave, but as a “hired servant” and to be released at the Year of Jubilee (every 50 years on the Jewish calendar) (Lev. 25:39-43). The person who purchased him was instructed “not to rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God.”
Second, to abduct a person and to reduce a stolen person to slavery was punishable by death (Ex. 21:16). Third, to murder a slave was punishable by death (Ex. 21:20; Lev. 24:17,22). The reason for this is once again because of the intrinsic value of a human being. Fourth, the enslaved debtor was to be released after six years (Ex. 21:2). There was no lifetime enslavement.
God, in the Old Testament, taking men where they were, regulated the practice of slavery and softened the edge of it. Contrast that with Roman law whereby a slave is not considered a person.
Old Testament scholar K.A. Kitchen summarizes the spirit of the Old Testament.
Generally, a more humane spirit breathes through the OT laws and customs on slavery, as illustrated by the repeated injunctions in God’s name not to rule over a brother Israelite harshly (e.g. Lev. 25:43,46,53,55; Dt. 15:14ff). Even when Hebrew law and custom on slaves shares in the common heritage of the ancient Semitic world, there is this unique care in God’s name for these people who by status were not people, something absent from the law codes of Babylon or Assyria.5
5 The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 1464.
The New Testament
When asked about marriage, our Lord refers questioners back to the beginning and God’s initial intention with the sacred institution (Matt. 19:3-9). In similar fashion the New Testament elevates the dignity of man (Jas. 3:9) by carrying him back to God’s created order. The beautiful principles of Christianity, influencing cultures one heart at a time, eventually eradicated the practice of slavery by re-asserting the value of human beings.
It is important to see however, that New Testament teaching did not smash with a sledge-hammer one single social institution that had imbedded itself in society. Instead, the doctrine of Christ works as a leaven in the soul of individuals, nations, and cultures. Slavery was one of those institutions.
This explains why the inspired apostles, when discussing the the question of slavery, not only advise masters and slaves how to behave in their particular life-situations, but address themselves to the deep antagonisms in the social world. This will be brought out below.
A cursory reading of the NT might cause one to think that sometimes the apostles seem to sanction slavery; at other times to proclaim its abolition—in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female; all are one man in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).
But Christianity abolishes slavery by assimilating and sanctifying the relation of master and servant in its inmost nature. While it refuses to wield the sword and destroy civil institutions by violence, it so transforms their ruling ideas that those institutions become what they never were before. For instance, Christ bestows on the most degraded and despised slave who is a believer, spiritual endowments that cannot fail to inspire him with a consciousness of freedom. He ceases to be a slave by the very fact of knowing that in the sight of God he is free, and his service ceases to be a bondage because it is now a willing obedience to Christ.6
What about those deep antagonisms that exist in all societies between different peoples? Paul’s overall theme in teaching is summarized in 1 Corinthians 7:10-24 which might be entitled, Live in Harmony with One Another. Like several NT passages in which slaves and masters are addressed, and who were part of local congregations to which the apostles ministered 7 some of the Corinthians were slaves and some were slave-owners. How did God counsel them?
“Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Were you called being a slave? Care not for it [that is, do not be overly concerned with your social condition. Your calling in Christ ECLIPSES this consideration]. Even if you can be free, use it rather …” (7:20-21).
The phrase “use it rather” following “even if you can be free” has been variously interpreted. It is either interpreted as (1) “… use your freedom,” or, (2) “use slavery …” Many modern commentators, and even the translators of the NIV, consider the phrase to be saying, “if you can gain your freedom, do so” –opting for the first alternative.
But it seems out of character with the theme of the entire section which is to Live in Harmony—even in challenging situations. Further, the next line in the passage (v. 22) begins with the word “for”—which is explanatory of that which has just been said. “FOR, he that was called in the Lord, being a slave, is the Lord’s freedman …” That explanation does not follow if Paul has just said, “if you can become free, do so.”
As John Peter Lange points out in his classic commentary, the “whole drift of the argument is—to make men content with their lot …” 8 That being the case, the translation is, “but even though you may be made free, use your servitude rather [as a means of discipline, and an opportunity for glorifying God by showing fidelity therein].”
6 Edwards, p. 186 7 See Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-4:1; 1 Pet. 2:18ff. 8 Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 10, p. 153.
In any case, the main point should not be lost on us. The important thing is to serve God “and the slave should not worry unduly about the fact that he is a slave. If God has called him as a slave, He will give him grace to live as a slave.” 9
F.W. Grosheide understands the verse as simply saying, Use your vocation—whether slave or free. 10 The entire argument of Paul is that the over-riding concern for the Christian is that of spiritual blessings “in Christ”, and this outweighs all other concerns—including slavery! The dominant factor is being a Christian.
How does this fit within the current context of so many churches and Christians all at once becoming extremely exercised about black slavery in history, or stirred to the point of anger about discrimination in the Jim Crow era? How does Paul’s advice comport with emotionally driven screeds today that demand a removal of a Christians’ name from Christian college buildings because those preachers lived during the segregation era but did not stomp it out with vengeance?
An interesting New Testament episode involves the runaway slave Onesimus. Paul met him while a prisoner in Rome (circa 63-64 A.D.), converted him to Christ, and sent him back to his owner, Philemon, a Christian man who lived in Colossae. A cover letter was sent with the returned slave (Col. 4:7,9). It is the book of Philemon.
In it Paul admonishes Philemon to “receive him back” and treat him no longer as a slave, but as a brother in Christ. “Not now as a slave, but more than slave, a brother beloved specially to me, but how much more unto you, both in the flesh and in the Lord?” (16) It is noteworthy that Paul does not command Philemon to “free him” but appeals to him on the basis of brotherhood. It is also worth mentioning that Paul actually sent Onesimus back to his slave master.
Once again, Christianity revolutionizes and changes the world, but not by pouring out into the streets, holding a nation hostage with violence and smashing its cultural symbols. It does so with the teaching of the peace of Jesus Christ.
John Peter Lange summarizes the entire disposition of biblical Christianity to slavery. Christ and his followers “assailed no existing social institutions from without—marriages, callings, and conditions were to remain as they were.” Christianity wrought “from within” a “sanctifying and ennobling” influence over individual character.
Biblical principles “employed the existing bonds of society as conductors through which to diffuse its saving power—sanctifying wives through husbands, and husbands through wives, children through parents, and parents through children; and even servants through masters and masters through servants.”
Further, as seen above, Christianity aims at the preservation of peace in a society—as far as possible—in consistency with being faithful to God (See Rom. 12:17-21). Christ wants us to “ignore outward distinctions—counting outward distinctions as of little moment, in comparison with the inward state.” How our society needs this lesson! What a difference this would make to the writers of the New York Times and the 1619 Project!
9 Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 1 Corinthians, p. 113. 10 NICNT, 1 Corinthians, p. 170.
Christ’s teachings “begot contentment with the outward estate, by imparting a blessing which more than counterbalanced all earthly ill.” Not only so, but the Lord Jesus “reconciled the opposite poles of human condition, freedom and obligation in the love it engendered, making the slave a freeman, and putting the freeman under obligations to serve, and making all alike free, and all alike obligated.”
Finally, the Bible places “all in the presence of God, in whose sight it constrained believers to live; whose honor it urged all to sub-serve, and from whom it invited all to derive their chief good.” 11
The gospel brings to mankind a belief and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. Faithfulness is commanded which involves the improvement of one’s character which in turn improves the conditions of society. When people place the glory of God foremost, not only is slavery eradicated as a social condition, but it is seen to be a very little thing in the ultimate scheme of things. It is past time for people to come to Christ and lift themselves above the grievances of slavery past or racism present.
Universal Basic Income: Roaring Back to Slavery-“So, who are the slaves?”
Much is being said today about a “universal basic income.” The concept is that every person ought to enjoy as a “human right” a minimum living wage—no work required. Former President Obama touted this in his recent South Africa speech honoring communist Nelson Mandela.He explained that the world needs to “’re-image’ our social and political arrangements” in order to provide “universal income.” That is Obamaspeak for finishing off the change of the structure of our government. Make it a dictatorship. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO, suggests that “we explore the idea of universal basic income.” Other socialists have begun to openly champion this communistic philosophy—but it is nothing more than slavery.
How is it slavery? Let’s back up for a moment. To begin, in thinking about “universal basic income” we are setting the Bible aside. God’s Word is ignored and ridiculed by major power-brokers and community-organizers of politics. Inspired testimony requires “if a man does not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). God’s order from the beginning has been “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread” (Gen. 3:19). But this concept is ruled out of court before we begin.
Secondly, we are setting aside the Constitution. Issues like basic income are normally discussed in terms of economics and political effects, not the Constitution. Besides, apart from skirmishing over miniscule issues such as “how many terms may a President serve?” or “how often must elections be held?”—the Constitution is defunct. We no longer have a Constitution nor anything that can be accurately described as constitutional law. To test this thesis, consider the issues of the day—government run health care; welfare; education, environmental concerns, etc. Each of these is debated in terms practical costs—can we afford it? Rarely, if ever, is the Constitution brought to bear on the subjects.
Back to our question. How is “universal basic income” a “roaring back to slavery?” Slavery, for all practical purposes is the process by which one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. When a slave produces, that production does not belong to that slave, but to another—his or her owner. This is the basic assumption of the Democrat Party—those who favor slavery.
For example, not long ago, Donald Calloway, Jr., a political advocate for the Democrat Party, objected to “drug testing” those who are recipients of welfare. His objection stated that those who are given a “tax break” by President Trump’s new plan ought also be tested if we are to be equal. Get it. He believes if my taxes decrease from 40% to 20% that is the same thing as the government handing me a welfare check. Keeping my own money is a “government benefit.”
Why?Because in theory Calloway believes all you earn and all of your potential production belongs to the government. Government decides what of your hard-earned money you can keep. It decides how much you must cough up to the “common good.”
This is the bare-bones definition of slavery. All of my production does not belong to me but to another—this time the government. This is slavery.
So, how is the government going to guarantee a basic income of anything for anyone? Look at the definition of government. Govern is “To exercise authority over; direct; control; rule; manage.” Government is the system by which this is accomplished. It is to control the affairs of a state or group of people. Or, as George Washington put it succinctly, “Government is force.”
By definition there is no possible method by which the “system” of organization can provide or guarantee any person anything at all except opportunity for fair play. Government has no money of its own—theoretically.
But how can a weak, small and limited by design government actually provide any person an income? This is impossible. By design its force is negligible. But that is not where we are, is it? Our government now has become so large, unmanageable and confiscatory that it strides like a leviathan over every natural boundary that exists. It therefore pilfers from the producers to give to the non-producers. All things are now possible.
So, who are the slaves? The workers. The producers. The laborers. You and me. Who owns them/us? The government, as seen by the Obama and Calloway-type statements above. Our production is considered government property. Therefore, to provide one person a “minimum living income” that government must confiscate even more from the workers such as myself to redistribute to another. This it readily does and promises to increase that taking at will, or as the mobs demand.
The bottom line is that the workers in America, owned by the world plantation at the United Nations headquarters in New York, or the Washington, D.C. plantation crowd in the nation’s capital, are being used by the slave masters to produce. The slave masters become popular to the non-producers who are now marching in mass on the streets with placards to demand more. President Trump’s efforts to roll back the size and scope of the plantation owners is being met with fierce opposition—by the plantation owners and the beneficiaries of their theft—the welfare class. Only one group has become slaves—the working middle class.
Calloway’s Socialism & Slavery– “His “poor class” that is simply “down on their luck” everyone knows will not fare very well.“
Donald Calloway, Jr., former Democratic state representative from Missouri, was pitted this week in a short interview-style debate with Star Parker on Fox & Friends regarding the Trump Administrations’ proposal to drug-test recipients of public welfare. Parker logged in favorably to the proposal, but predictably, Calloway opposed it. No drug testing ought to be conducted on those who receive “public benefits,” Calloway said. He offered several arguments as to why he believed drug-testing ought not be conducted. Examining his “arguments” reveals a shocking and skewed view of the world and of reality itself, which seems to be Democratic stock-in-trade.
Calloway’s First Argument
Calloway’s first argument, repeated several times in the course of a few minutes, was that this “vilifies the poor” and if we wanted to be equal we would drug-test all those corporation-heads and household-heads that have just received a tax cut from the Trump Administration! Get it: Calloway the Democrat believes that tax cuts equate with government hand-outs to the poor—hand-out money that has been confiscated from the middle-class. If my taxes decrease from 40% to 20% that is the same thing as the government handing me a welfare check. Both are “benefits,” Per Calloway– Unbelievable.
Well, Donald Calloway, bring it on! For argument’s sake: do it– drug-test every single person in the country; those that fail will receive nothing. No tax cuts, no welfare, no write-offs—nothing. His “poor class” that is simply “down on their luck” everyone knows will not fare very well. The average person of common observation ability knows that illegal drug use is rampant among the poor, among the minority-classes, and among those who receive government welfare. In every community the story is the same. I’ll take that challenge, Calloway!!
More to the point, however, Calloway gives Americans a glimpse into the Democratic view of the world. There is no such thing as “individual rights” before God. You are nothing but a cog in a society wheel to be utilized at the leaders’ discretion.Everything you make; every penny you earn belongs to the government—and when the government lowers taxes “allowing” you to “keep” more of what you earned—you need to realize that 100% of it belongs to the government to begin with. You are a slave to the state and are to kiss the hand that feeds you. Nothing belongs to you. Period. That is the underlying assumption of Calloway.
The only way that an educated person could possibly equate government taking from some and re-distributing to others (welfare) with lowering your taxes and allowing you to keep what you yourself have earned is on the assumption mentioned above. I wonder if this is what is taught at Alabama A&M where he majored in Political Science and English?
But this is common belief among Democrats. Listen to Nancy Pelosi who tweeted this unbelievable comment last week—before taking it down.
“I am disgusted with ‘President’ Trump allowing people to keep more of the money they earn. It is this type of wide spread theft of public resources that keeps America from being great, ‘Mr. President.’”
There you have it again. Keeping money you earn is a “theft of public resources.” Individuals are a “public resource” to be utilized as the managers of society see fit. How these people ever get elected to office can only be explained on the grounds that the constituents they represent must have their own head in drug-induced clouds. It also explains the wickedness of Socialism. No individual human rights—at least not to the reward for your own labor.
Calloway’s Second Argument
Calloway’s second argument was that drug testing has constitutional hurdles because of the Goldberg v. Kelly Supreme Court decision of 1970. Here, the Warren Court decided that the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment requires a hearing before a public beneficiary of government handouts may be deprived of them.
Here it is important to see that the Court held that welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlements for persons who are qualified. The majority stated that welfare benefits is the private property of the recipients of which one cannot be deprived without “due process” of law. Food, housing, clothing, and medical benefits paid for by others and forcibly redistributed by the state actually belong to the recipients! This is the definition of entitlement.
Due Process simply means that no one can confiscate your private property or deprive a person of his life or liberty without due process of law. Calloway’s second argument may be on target with the Goldberg decision, but just as in the Dred Scott decision of 1857 in which Supreme Court ruled that “blacks were not citizens” of the United States but were considered “property”—the Goldberg decision is simply wrong and unconstitutional to boot. It is interesting also that Roger Taney, the chief justice at the Dred Scott decision, relied upon the “due process” clause of the Constitution in the Fifth Amendment. Slaves were private property of slave owners and these could not be removed “without due process of law.” How would Calloway answer this?
Anyone with just a smattering knowledge of the Constitution recognizes at once Calloway’s error. It is the same as Roger Taney’s mistake.
That welfare benefits are “private property” of the recipients is clear violation of Natural Law. Government has no right by nature to steal from one segment of society and give to another, period. So all the founders who wrote the Constitution believed and encoded into law.
But the New Deal period turned this common law maxim upside down and theft of private property and redistribution to others by an all-knowing government became commonplace. Then came the extreme “decision” (Goldberg v. Kelly) that this confiscated money actually belongs as private property to the recipient of welfare benefits! Calloway and the Goldberg decision is wrong just the same as Taney and the Dred Scott decision was wrong.
Calloway’s Third Argument
Calloway’s third and final argument was that “drug testing” of welfare recipients is “unchristian.” Here Calloway’s argument becomes a farce. Like all socialists, he misuses and abuses the Word of God.
That there are biblical injunctions to care for the poor is common knowledge. However, all of these commands are either individual mandates or apply to local churches of Christ. Not one of these biblical commands has even the remotest equivalence to government taxation and redistribution.
As a matter of fact, if Calloway wants Bible, let him see 1 Timothy 5 where the apostle Paul set forth criteria by which the young evangelist Timothy might help leaders of churches decide which persons ought to receive financial benefits and which ones should not. Even inspired Paul put forth a test. In the words of our Lord, Calloway needs “go learn what this means.” Paul forbade assistance to those who did not meet certain standards, going so far as to say that assisting those who should and could be working causes people to be idle, busybodies (involved in ungodly activities) and, saying things they ought not(v. 13). Exactly the point.
Far from being “unchristian”, setting out certain criteria, namely drug-testing, by which welfare distribution might be determined, is a common-sense beginning to cutting down our out-of-control spending in America. And if the Democrats of the country like Calloway and Pelosi want real constitutional reform—let’s go back and re-establish the Original Intent of the Founders. Public welfare as we know it would disappear in a heartbeat.
Brainwashing Americans on the Founders and Slavery– “The opinion of the Founders as a whole was that slavery was an evil to be eradicated.”
Those familiar with the techniques consistently used by Communist and/or socialist nations know that brainwashing has been a major factor in controlling people. By methods of thought control via propaganda totalitarian regimes are able to indoctrinate citizens by inculcating beliefs that are helpful to massive population control measures. This is precisely what is occurring in our halls of learning today.
Destructive behavior among students is being bred and fed against America itself by a constant drum-beat of ill-informed, even sinister, castigation of the Founding generation. The chief charge is that the Founders were slave-owners. With that snippet of information student firebrands are enlisting in communist Antifa groups and pouring onto the streets to destroy our free society.
Consider the fact that every single leading “founding father” acknowledged that slavery was wrong. “Slavery was legal and practiced in every state in 1776; by the end of the founding era, more than a hundred thousand slaves had been freed by the outlawing of slavery in seven of the original thirteen states or by individual acts of manumission, especially in the South” (Thomas G. West, Vindicating the Founders, xiii).
Most importantly, the Founders themselves laid the groundwork for the eventual abolition of slavery. This was done by their dedication to the “equality principle” as well as written directly into the Constitution. This was unlike any nation in the history of the world.
Article 1.9 of the Constitution became what has been called the “first milestone” on the long road back from slavery. This compromise provision delayed the prohibition against the importation of slaves by twenty years. Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina were thereby insured to come into the union by this measure. The program of the Founders was that slavery was to phase out.
Liberals and enviro-fascists today who despise the Founders understand this perfectly. For example, many of them harangue against the oil-based industry upon which our economy is built, going so far to categorize America’s use of coal and gas as “unethical” and a “rape of the environment.” Nevertheless, these same pontificators do no suggest the shutting down in one day the entire oil industry, but instead work to transfer us to more “clean energy” sources. As misguided as they are, they know the wisdom of a slow and gradual change in an economy.
When Jefferson was only twenty-five years old he was elected to the Virginia legislature. His very first legislative effort was to emancipate slaves. Though a slave-owner, Jefferson recognized the evil of the system. The failure of this measure was due to the fact that Virginia was a British colony which disallowed the manumission of slaves.
Later, Jefferson wrote right into the Declaration of Independence the following commentary on “all men are created equal.”
He [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere … Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.
“All men are created equal” included blacks. Jefferson’s subsequent career included proposing laws for the emancipation of slavery in Virginia (1779); proposed a law to outlaw slavery in the Northwest Territories (1784); he penned “the most eloquent denunciation of slavery written by anyone in the founding era” in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1787); he publicly supported the abolition of the slave trade as president (1807); and throughout his life expressed his fervent opposition to slavery (Woods, 3).
The entire founding generation was so opposed to slavery that historian Thomas Woods characterizes the Revolution as an “antislavery movement.” The opinion of the Founders as a whole was that slavery was an evil to be eradicated. In keeping with this sentiment the adoption by various states of emancipation laws they directly tied to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
Due to the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney in 1793 cotton was made king in the South and changed the trajectory that the Founders had mapped out for the abolition of slavery. Cotton and slavery ruled while the principles of the Constitution were ignored. Nevertheless, the Founders themselves cannot be blamed for this course.
Inscribed on Panel 3 of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. is this compendium of Jefferson’s own words regarding slavery. They are compiled from his A Summary View of the Rights of British America and his Notes on the State of Virginia, “Query 18.” That he speaks for the founders, generally, cannot be denied by the fair-minded.
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan.
Because of the greatness of the Founding generation of principled men who based their system of belief upon biblical values, America became a leader in the western world in the emancipation of slaves. Today’s general and growing disdain for the founding generation by young radicals who parrot prejudiced professorships about early American slavery illustrates only one thing. There is a homegrown hate of our own nation begin incubated in the halls of learning. By this methodology mobs are being indoctrinated to destroy our culture.
Defacing Confederate Monuments: The Latest Communist Destruction of American Culture-“This is not about slavery.”
by Bill Lockwood
It is happening in Charlottesville, VA; Durham, NC; Baltimore, MD; Jacksonville, FL; Gainesville, FL; Lexington, KY; Brooklyn, NY; Hollywood, CA; New Orleans, LA; Wilmington, NC—the list goes on. Statues honoring Confederate soldiers are being toppled and defaced. In a similar vein, earlier this year at Pepperdine University a statue of Christopher Columbus was removed in the wake of protests.
This is not about slavery. No one honors slavery in any form in America. This is about destroying the culture of America. To do that history must be revoked. Violent protests are therefore being organized, funded and implemented by hardcore leftists, communist, socialist, and anarchist groups. They are not spontaneous.
The World Workers Party (WWP), which helped organize the Durham, NC anarchy, proudly states on its website that participating mobsters are “freedom fighters.” The WWP describes itself as “a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party dedicated to organizing and fighting for socialist revolution in the United States and around the world.” Other groups at the rally included members of the Triangle People’s Assembly, Industrial Workers of the World and the Democratic Socialists of America, reported The Herald Sun. It is the culture of America that is being toppled.
If this was about slavery we would be seeing mosques picketed and destroyed while stacks of Korans would be burning in the streets. Islam sanctions and encourages slavery. Mohammed himself, the founder of Islam, was a slave owner, slave wholesaler, slave retailer, slave torturer and sex slave user. Enshrined for all time in the Koran is the command from Allah that each Muslim man may have up to four wives plus “those whom his right hand may posses” (4:3). These commands are being carried out in Islamic countries.
On the subject of slavery in America it is worth noting that Muslim slave traders sold America every slave that came to our shores, yet Islam has never acknowledged this fact nor apologized.
If this was about slavery America would quit honoring the Native American or Indian culture of yesteryear. Indian tribes throughout America regularly captured, bought, sold, and used slaves from enemy tribes as well as the whites. Slavery was a part of their culture.
Perhaps Pepperdine president Andrew Benton, who quickly ceded to a small minority demand to remove the Columbus statue, should have considered this fact. Instead, he participated in mourning the “painful human tragedy” that Columbus supposedly represented by bringing the terrible “white man” to these shores.
Even socialism itself is a system of slavery. On the Socialist Alternative website the placard “Health Care for People, Not Profit” is displayed in prominent fashion. If I am a health-care provider their goal is for me to “serve” for free the public needs—in spite of years of personal training and financing to earn my credentials. What is this? Forced labor is slavery. This boldly requires the government arm to force my service. Let Bernie Sanders wrestle with this—for socialist organizations are calling upon him to assist them in their “struggle” for a socialist America.
Most disconcerting in all of this is the complete capitulation jelly-spined political leaders have demonstrated. Jim Gray, the mayor of Lexington, hurries himself to cleanse that city of Kentucky of Confederate memorials. We must please the revolutionaries.
Spineless and ill-informed Governor Cooper of NC tells that “My first responsibility as governor is to protect North Carolinians and keep them safe. The likelihood of protestors being injured or worse as they may try to topple any one of the hundreds of monuments in our state concerns me. And the potential for those same white supremacist elements we saw in Charlottesville to swarm the site, weapons in hand, in retaliation is a threat to public safety.”
Cooper was referring to the Durham incident where leftist Antifa and communist Black Lives Matter agitators clashed with white nationalists. But Durham only focused on white nationalists in the incident.
All of this reminds one of the Universities during the 1960’s. Once again, fomented by communist and socialist organizations, student hippie brigades lawlessly took over administration buildings on various campuses to demand a hearing with the authorities. Instead of forcibly expelling these thugs, school presidents and superintendents sheepishly sat down in the halls with Marxist protestors to pow-wow about their discontent.
Surrendering to this lawlessness which is bent on erasing American culture means feeding the Left enough oxygen to complete the destruction of our way of life. Mobs are organizing across the United States which behave more like ignorant juvenile delinquents than reasonable adults. They are coming to a town near you.
Selected Slavery: Loving to Hate America at UVA-“Why is it necessary to define slavery for the professors at UVA and other institutions of selected learning?”
by Bill Lockwood
According to The Daily Caller, a group of 469 professors and students “at the University of Virginia (UVA) are calling for the school’s president to stop quoting school founder Thomas Jefferson, on the grounds that Jefferson was a slave owner.” The public letter composed by the group went on to add that “We would like for our administration to understand that although some members of this community may have come to this university because of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, others of us came here in spite of it.”
In a related story, “the president of San Francisco’s board of education wants to remove George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from the names of all tax-payer funded schools in the city because the forefathers owned slaves.” The San Francisco Examiner reports that “Board of Education President Matt Haney is expected to introduce a resolution as early as next week encouraging schools in the San Francisco Unified School District that bear the names of men with questionable human rights legacies to consider proposing new monikers.”
The Examiner explains that “The idea came to him after listening to a sermon Sunday at Third Baptist Church, a black church in the Western Addition, about 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick protesting the national anthem in recent weeks. The song’s slave-owning author, Francis Scott Key, has a school named after him in the Outer Sunset.”
Why the Selected Slavery?
What shall we say to these things? First, I suppose the UVA crowd and the San Francisco authorities will be banning the reading of the Koran and building mosques. If it is SLAVERY that they so despise, then consistency drives them to ban the Koran because it teaches “chattel slavery” as a continuing positive institution endorsed by Allah. “Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; But if ye fear ye shall not deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive [slave] that your right hand possesses …” (Surah 4:3).
Mohammed himself was involved in every aspect of slavery. He had non-believing men killed so that their women and children could be made slaves (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, 466). He gave away slaves as gifts. He owned slaves, even a black slave by the name of Safina, whom he called “ship” because he carried Mohammed’s baggage for him.
Mohammed passed around slaves to his lieutenants that they might be used for sex. He stood by while others beat slaves. After one major battle he enjoyed the pleasures of forced sex with the widows of men he had recently slain. He captured slaves and wholesaled them in order to finance jihad. Mohammed received slaves as gifts from other rulers.
Mohammed’s pulpit from which he preached was made by slaves; he ate food prepared by slaves; he approved of an owner’s having sex with his slaves. The “prophet of Islam” put it right into the Koran for modern-day Muslims that they may “own those whom their right hand possesses.” Slavery has always been a part of Islam; it is taught in the Muslim holy book.
Will our professors and student body at UVA therefore ban the Koran, or ban mosques, or ban Muslims? No. Because like all wild-eyed liberal, socialist and/or communistic societies, it is only our America, and its foundations, that they love to hate—not the institution of slavery.
Second, it would be interesting to hear the professors at UVA define slavery. I am going to launch out here and suggest that they do not even understand what is slavery. What is slavery? We normally say, “one person owned by another.” But what is it to “own” another? It means that all my production belongs to someone else. In other words, I work for free for someone else, and not on a voluntary basis.
Slavery is a “legal or economic system” in which the “principles of property law” are applied to persons. In other words, “While a person is enslaved, the owner is entitled to the productivity of the slave’s labor, without any remuneration” (Encyclopedia Britannica online). A person is a SLAVE if he or she is “forced to work for another person without ability on the worker’s part to unilaterally terminate the arrangement.” Forcibly using one person by another. Forced labor is “the forced exploitation of a person’s labor.”
Why is it necessary to define slavery for the professors at UVA and other institutions of selected learning? For this. Many college students are completely in the dark, made so by liberal professorships. A government that forcibly removes the production of my labor, or forces me to labor for others is practicing slavery. But this is exactly the definition of SOCIALISM. Socialism is slavery at the government level. But this the professors want! See the vast numbers of college students who supported Bernie Sanders—the avowed socialist.
ObamaCare, which is on the way out, is a perfect illustration of socialism. Doctors may have financed their own education to the tune of a million dollars and need to re-coup their costs by the fees they charge—but Big Brother Government FORCES them to work for free. It steals their production and re-distributes it among others. This forcible labor the government calls “caring for the poor.” Collegiate masses favored this system of plunder!
If UVA professors or the San Francisco mayor wish to oppose slavery, they can start with the modern-day version of it—socialistic government. The legs of the lame are not equal. Slavery to the White House is fine with them; but slavery to a white’s house in American history is criminal.
Third, the Founding Fathers with one voice condemned slavery. It was a horrific institution which they tried to expunge from America from the colonial period forward. Thomas Jefferson’s first effort as a representative at the Virginia state assembly was to abolish slavery. The year was 1776. He and Madison both wished to clear out the “rubbish of feudalism, aristocracy, and slavery.” His proposed bill would eradicate slavery in one generation. The reason it did not occur was due to the fact that England forbade it. The founders later put right into the Constitution that slave trafficking would cease within 20 years of 1787 (Article 1.9.1).
At least the Founders were honest about it, recognizing that an institution which they had been born with was evil. They all set it on a course for extinction. The UVA letter also repeats the unfounded allegation against Thomas Jefferson that he had illegitimate children by Sally Hemings, a black slave he owned. Once again, what is occurring on campuses or in the halls of San Francisco government is nothing less than hatred of America. It is on display as they continue to libel the Founders of our great nation.
American education is all about excoriating the institution of slavery. If nothing else gets taught, this does. The sins of our forefathers owning black slaves is continuously kept before the eyes of students. This is one reason very little celebration occurs in public schools for our wonderful Constitution or the genius of its crafters. The Millennial Generation is programmed to ask only one thing: “Didn’t the Founders own slaves?”
I dare to ask: What’s wrong with slavery? Very few apparently ponder the definition of slavery. Cutting out the unjust physical oppression whereby one person “beats” another–for that is not in itself by definition slavery—what exactly is slavery?
Definitions include “bondage” or “servitude.” But these are merely synonyms. What is it to be “in bondage” or “servitude?” Closer to the real essence of slavery is “complete ownership or control” of one person by another. The “complete domination” of an individual by another in which the enslaved person “works without pay,” and does “not pursue his/her own life.”
Even more specific is this: “A civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and property.” In other words, the production or toil of the worker is completely owned by another.
Now compare the definition of slavery to that of “socialism.” The latter being a broad category, but generally it is any theory of the government owning the means (labor, capital) of production.
Setting the two definitions beside one another one can see there is little, if any substantive difference. Socialism is slavery at a governmental level. Slavery institutionalized. When Bernie Sanders, therefore, touts socialism as his model, he is piping for slavery. Slavery to the state.
America began down the socialistic route with the administrations of Woodrow Wilson (inauguration of the Federal Reserve System) and FDR (beginnings of The New Deal). For example, FDR’s famous “additions” to the Founding Fathers’ “freedom of speech” and “freedom of worship” were “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear.” These are enshrined upon stone at the FDR memorial in Washington, D.C.
However, see FDR’s sleight of hand. As columnist Charles Scaliger commented, it is “impossible to guarantee freedom from want and freedom from fear without compelling others to provide these goods.” Exactly. The first two freedoms (of speech, of worship) demand government to keep their “hands off.” The latter two demand powerful hands-on to re-distribute the earnings or labor of others. What is this? Slavery. No different than living on a plantation.
Sadly, Republicans too frequently cannot see these clear realities. Promising to keep the welfare state (slavery) alive, one queried me pertaining to illegal immigrants: “What’s the difference in me (government) taking your earnings and giving it to Americans and giving it to illegal aliens?”
Well, aside from citizenship factors, the answer is NOTHING. Nothing, if slavery is to be endorsed. My objection to redistribution of my earnings is not based upon the nationality or identity of the recipients. It is rooted in the immoral conduct of an unchained government that believes it has the power to forcibly rob Peter to pay Paul. Citizen or not.
America is on the point of splitting itself into warring factions right now. But that is in part because our politically-correct American history preaches the debauchery of slavery while the likes of socialist Bernie Sanders and “milquetoast” establishment Republicans endorse slavery—to one degree or another. How long will we go limping between two opinions?