The deleterious effects of slavery remain a significant field of study. Exploring why Southern clergy supported African enslavement reveals motivations not unlike today’s luminaries in religious and political life who demonstrate similar objectionable behaviors.
This paper argues that two pillars of pastoral support for the South’s doctrine of slavery were, first, that it was providentially sanctioned, and second, it enabled pro-slavery clergymen to accumulate wealth and influence, often by not only supporting the enslavement of people but also by enslaving people themselves. Moreover, these two pillars were essentially linked: to gain the financial support of slaveholders, ministers modified their providential theology to justify slaveholding. Sermons defending the institution made pastors popular and relevant: they were preaching what congregants wanted to hear.
First examined is how Southern evangelical attitudes regarding slavery progressed from criticism to collaboration to being a cornerstone of their faith. Facing mounting opposition, supportive religionists scrambled to develop biblical arguments to buttress the “Peculiar Institution.” As providential justification, slavery apologists repeatedly referred to the biblical “Curse of Ham.” Once framed, the pro-slavery message was quickly projected into the community consciousness. Defending their honor, churches, and way of life, slavery came to shape their entire worldview. Southern Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists united “their racial stereotypes, political theories, religious beliefs, and economic realities” (David Brion Davis).
Second, antebellum pastors realized they must preach the gospel not only to the common white community and those enslaved, but also to slaveholders. Wealthy taskmasters were needed to build strong denominational structures, printing houses, colleges, and seminaries. Consequently, ministers adjusted their theology to justify slaveholding as morally and rightly within Christian character. “The sermon in defense of slavery became a religious ritual of self-defense in the antebellum South” (Paul Harvey).
Third, this paper will argue that young, ambitious, poor pastors sought affluence by marrying the daughters of wealthy slave-holding planters. Once a minister thus “arrived,” he held a vested interest in perpetuating slavery. Class-conscious pastors also sought respect from wealthy planters as befitting their ministerial position. Ministers did not acquire social standing unless they owned a plantation, which meant enslaving people, who were living prestige symbols. Ministers foisted themselves into roles where their influence could not be ignored. Such shrewd efforts helped move Southern congregations toward cultural assimilation of slavery. These pastors did not just push back against opponents of slavery—they actively advocated slavery.