Who
is he talking about? Not 'Anglo-Celtics,' that's for sure.
Polish people maybe. The much-advertised 'Bible argument,' by the
way, is that sinfulness is hereditary, and therefore "Ham's posterity,
like their father, would be peculiarly degraded in morals"
(Robert
Lewis Dabney, Defense of Virginia and the South, Kindle location
1209) (Noah having become a cut-out for God, and Canaan sliding back a
generation to Ham). It is to be expected that ". .
.depraved parents will naturally rear depraved children, unless God
interfere by a grace to which they have no claim; so that not only
punishment, but the sinfulness, becomes hereditary." (Robert Lewis Dabney, Defense of Virginia and the South, Kindle location 1211). Owing to "the peculiar
moral degradation" (Robert Lewis Dabney, Defense of Virginia and the
South, Kindle location 1221) of black folk, slavery is supposedly
God's best and highest for them, because the kindly slave-master can
correct their tendency toward degraded morals, no doubt by whipping
as is deemed appropriate. We learn these facts, not from the Bible, which
neglects to mention them, but from "actual history." (Robert Lewis Dabney,
Defense of Virginia and the South, Kindle location 1209). And this is
the much ballyhooed compelling 'argument' the abolitionists could not
answer!
The reader will have noticed that this new feint runs counter to the
'sentimental' defense of slavery before noted, which loved to dwell
on scenes of reunion between slaves and slave-owners: "Massa and
Missis have long gone before me, Soon we will meet on that bright
and golden shore, There we'll be happy and free from all sorrow,
There's where we'll meet and we'll never part no more." (Carry Me
Back to Old Virginny, James Bland). Now we learn the slaves are
hell-hounds who are not bound for glory, and indeed it is this reoriented destination which
justifies their enslavement. If the sentimentalists are right, Dabney is slandering God's people; if Dabney is right, the sentimentalists are raving.
To the extent the slavers believed his obsequious flattery, they
added the sin of pride to that of oppression, "He, whom his white
oppressor refused to worship with, eat with, sail with, or dwell
with on earth, shall dwell, and worship, and reign where his master
may never be; and when— as may often happen— the white skin is
shut out, and the black man, now and forever free, passes in at the
celestial gate, it shall furnish but another illustration of the
truth, that salvation is 'not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.'" (Thomas Guthrie, The
Gospel in Ezekiel, Kindle location 2178).
To reproduce the kind of sophistry on display in Dabney's 'Defense of
Virginia,' consider: is there anything wrong with the relationship between employer and
employee, in itself? Why, no. Thank you. Therefore, there can be
nothing wrong with an employer paying an employee ten cents an hour,
any more than paying him ten dollars an hour; nor can there be
anything wrong with stationing the employee within a sweat-shop in a
building likely to fall down, as opposed to providing a safe,
comfortable work-place. This is how Dabney wishes away the Mosaic law's
limitation of servitude to a term of six years: if service were wrong it
itself, it would be abolished, not limited; but the limitation to six
years is an administrative detail; therefore, life-long slavery is
enthusiastically endorsed by Moses. . .in spite of the slight
technicality, that it is illegal. This is not sound reasoning; among
other things, it equivocates on the word 'slavery,' because the points
of demarcation between slavery and other forms of labor organization are
precisely issues of 'how long' and 'under what circumstances.
Those American states, in the North, which abolished slavery
prior to the Civil War did so in most cases according to a gradual
schedule: persons born after a certain date, would become free on
their twenty-first birthday. There are several reasons for that. It
was not considered desirable to tell an eighty-year-old,
'Congratulations! Now you're free! Go out and make a living!' Such a
person would have no resources, nor any prospects of finding
employment. So the date of the enactment of the law was no Day of
Jubilee for the eighty-year-old, nor for anyone else, though the law's backers promoted
it as promising the end to slavery in the state. Generally speaking,
state governments are reluctant to confiscate lawfully acquired
property without compensation, and thus stretching the scheduled
emancipation out for twenty odd years was considered a fair
compromise.
Now here's the beauty of R. L. Dabney's 'in itself'
argument: these laws abolishing slavery, which is what everyone
considered them to be, because the end result of the legislation was
that, after a date certain, there is no one held in slavery, are
actually the very proof of slavery's essential rightness, and of the
slave-owner's right to perpetual ownership of his 'property'! How
so? Well, because as the law states very plainly, the slave-owner is
allowed the use of the slave's coerced labor, for a certain, limited
period; perhaps not long enough to recoup his investment, but still
a period of years. Indeed, that's the way these laws were written.
This proves that slavery is right 'in itself,' because otherwise it
would not be tolerated for a second! So the very laws intended to
abolish slavery in the North, prove its essential righteousness and
establish the impossibility of abolishing it! We are far into
Alice-in-Wonderland territory, with this 'brilliant' and incisive
argument. Maybe such powerful arguments should come with a warning
label.
The reader is similarly reminded of the conundrum, called sorites, wherein the donkey
nibbles at the hay bale; he eats one straw, the bale is not diminished;
he eats another, there is still no visible change; but keep it up, and
at some point, there is not a single strand of hay left on the barn floor.
Whence departed the 'hay bale'? What is a working life, but a finite sequence of years?
How these years are distributed is precisely wherein labor justice is
found. Dabney's much-ballyhooed logic is no more than a card trick,
prestidigitation, by which he causes to disappear Moses' 'six years then
freedom:' now you see it, now you don't. Moses, by term-limiting servitude to six years, cannot simultaneously be
endorsing life-long slavery. What, after all, is the difference between
'employment' and 'slavery,' other than terms and conditions, including
length of the contract? Let's see how to take a minimum-wage law,
mandating an employer pay an employee $7.00 an hour, and employ Dabney's
'logic' to show it really means you can pay the employee 70 cents an
hour:
Q. The law says, an employer must pay an employee $7.00
an hour. That means the employer-employee relation cannot be evil in
itself; if it were it would be curtailed immediately, like the relation between
kidnapper and his victim, not regulated. A. Maybe. Did you know
your slaves were, in the main, originally kidnap victims? Q.
Thus, having established the relation between employer and
employee is good in itself, it is equally good if he pays him 70
cents an hour. A. Whether good or only permitted, the law says seven dollars, not 70
cents! Q. You are not listening. The law only proves the
employer/employee relationship is good in itself. In spite of
the little technicality that it also says to pay him $7.00, my
brilliant logic proves it is equally good to pay him only 70 cents. Just as,
if Moses exclaims that six years of slavery is good, why then twelve
years is even better,— twice as good, to be exact!
A. Tell it to the judge; he will ask what happened to the
missing $6.30. Just like Moses will ask what happened to the
six-year limitation which went poof.
Dabney makes preposterous claims, like that "in
their native country there was no marriage, and no marriage law" (Robert
Lewis Dabney, Defense of Virginia and the South, Kindle location 2716),
in defense of the South's failure to respect marriages between slaves. Dabney
incessantly argues in a circle: when Moses commands asylum for the
fugitive slave, he cannot really mean what he says, because Moses, as we
have determined, is pro-slavery. Yet Wilson commends this tinny special
pleading as if it were razor-sharp argumentation. In his mind, the important
thing is adjectives: if you pile up the correct set of adjectives in
structuring society, whether obedient to the law or not, you have done well. His adjectives are the opposite of Mary's adjectives in her
magnificat: God loves especially the big, the powerful, the strong. Who
else might a mighty God love and cherish? In their world, God champions
hierarchy: "But the Christian faith teaches that God has established the
world in hierarchal strata. In contrast, the democratic faith teaches
that we are all equal and that any child can become president."
(Douglas
Wilson, The Case for Classical Christian Education, p. 73). But the living God overturns
hierarchy: "He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them
of low degree." (Luke 1:52).

Theology Proper
Robert Lewis Dabney was not only a political agitator for the 'lost
cause' of the Confederacy, he was also a theologian. He is quoted in
that capacity by luminaries like John Piper. I personally don't have a problem
quoting him to establish Calvinist doctrine, but then I don't like
Calvinist doctrine either. There are plenty of people who have failed the
personal holiness test, though they are still popular with some
believers today, like Karl Barth. Robert Lewis Dabney was an unapologetic white supremacist, and he was
also a Calvinist:
|