Although not at all the primary focus, but an initial one, I wanted to make comment on the suggestion around Christianity as a (among other things, it would seem) a slavery-apologist doctrine. I could just be reading into the following too much: “but [Hopkins] is a Christian, and as such he cannot be too quick to jump to the support of his other faculties that may undermine the one ‘infallible law’ of God’s word”. This line, which may just be tongue and cheek, felt particularly uncharitable and even hurtful. I’ll grant, here and there a “he” + verb is sprinkled in for Hopkins professing his various biblical interpretations, but I kept waiting for this to be explicitly stated as *not*, to reiterate: “the one infallible law of God’s word”. Yes, historically there were slaves and these are mentioned in the Bible as Hopkins points out, but I would encourage anyone to read as well as reference the overwhelming interpretations of stories such as Hagard’s (the Egyptian handmaiden). You will find it to be, like many things of the Bible, a nuanced story. Hagard, a pregnant woman, told not to wander unprotected into the violent and dangerous desert where she would have been resold or likely much worse, and lastly, not to mention God’s promise to Hagard. This same story, ironically, found in Exodus, which in large part details God delivering the Jews ... out of slavery in Egypt. In fact, there’s a whole theological perspective called ‘liberation theology’ one could look into.
I’ll leave off in saying, every Christian is no stranger to those cherry pick lines, justifying their interpretations, without understanding the full scope of the Bible, which, unfortunately it would seem for some, does not end with the Old Testament. And again, maybe all I was looking for was a small nod to the bevy of abolitionists, radical and those less so, who identified with sects or ideas of Christianity. I was left thinking but for Lincoln’s staunch moral stance of America’s founding documents and statehood those backward Christian ‘thinker(s)’ of the Union, clinging to slavery, did not triumph. If nothing else, I found it a cautionary tale to any professed Christian on Hopkins. That being, taking a myopic view of the Word to justify an abhorrence. I would ask Hopkins what God’s response was to Cain in asking “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
I was not attempting to make Christianity a slave apologist doctrine. My point here was to explain some views contemporary to the Civil War on slavery. One of these, unfortunately, was that the Bible was used as a justification. Many Americans believed this way in the early and middle 19th century. And many didn't, as well. This view was still common and often glanced over by historians. Even then I did not expand as much as I would have liked to on Christianity's influence in American slavery. In history we must bring uncomfortably things into the light to study, and unfortunately this is one if them. I don't presently believe every Christian is a slavery apologist or blindly follows every word in the Bible, I know that isn't even close to true. I'm sorry you thought that I thought that way.
As to the "infallible" line I was neither being tongue in cheek or satiric. This is actually how Hopkins felt. He believed that he, despite his judgements, had to follow the letter of the law (in this case: God's). He believed this is how Christianity should operate. Perhaps I should have clarified. But he believes the Civil War was underway because Christians did not follow this set of beliefs. I'm using Hopkins as a case study, not a stand in for millions of Christians in 1863 or the millions in 2023.
To add onto Vaughn's comment, I understand using the juxtaposition of Hopkins's views compared to Lincoln's, but the unintentional effect is that it implies that Christianity holds (or at least held) a similar view as Hopkins. Of course, there were Christians who used their bibles to justify slavery (we often saw this in the South) but that is at odds with the overarching readings of the Bible. The Bible condemns slavery and unjust servitude through it's staunch advocacy of human dignity and the way it deals with the issue of slavery.
Historically, America had the ideal of "all men are created equal" and the Constitutional Congress even debated outlawing slavery from the start of the country. However, they realized that if they outlawed slavery immediately, the country would fall apart before it ever got together. So they kept slavery to keep the country. But over time, the USA worked towards that ideal of equality, with President Thomas Jefferson signing restrictions on the slave
trade, and all the way up to the freedom of the slaves and the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
Similarly, the story of the Bible and God shows that the world was brutal. Slavery and rape were rampant in conquest. However, God had a plan for His people. Unfortunately, they were so wicked they would have rejected every bit of the moral law if presented with its entirety, so the Bible shows a sort of "12-step program" if you will. It says "if you have slaves, treat them well" and then "don't take Hebrews as your slaves" and "release your slaves every jubilee year" and so on until Christ comes and fulfills the law. The Epistles of Paul write about how we are all one in Christ: Gentile and Jew, man and woman, servant and free. This would've been unthinkable to the Israelites in Genesis or Exodus, but it was made possible through the story of our salvation.
Also for what it's worth, different denominations of Christianity interpret scripture differently. As a Catholic, we have organized the ten commandments throughout church history as follows: 9. Do not covet thy neighbor's wife; 10. Do not covet thy neighbor's goods. It was separated to emphasize the humanity of the wife - she wasn't property of the husband but her own person.
Although not at all the primary focus, but an initial one, I wanted to make comment on the suggestion around Christianity as a (among other things, it would seem) a slavery-apologist doctrine. I could just be reading into the following too much: “but [Hopkins] is a Christian, and as such he cannot be too quick to jump to the support of his other faculties that may undermine the one ‘infallible law’ of God’s word”. This line, which may just be tongue and cheek, felt particularly uncharitable and even hurtful. I’ll grant, here and there a “he” + verb is sprinkled in for Hopkins professing his various biblical interpretations, but I kept waiting for this to be explicitly stated as *not*, to reiterate: “the one infallible law of God’s word”. Yes, historically there were slaves and these are mentioned in the Bible as Hopkins points out, but I would encourage anyone to read as well as reference the overwhelming interpretations of stories such as Hagard’s (the Egyptian handmaiden). You will find it to be, like many things of the Bible, a nuanced story. Hagard, a pregnant woman, told not to wander unprotected into the violent and dangerous desert where she would have been resold or likely much worse, and lastly, not to mention God’s promise to Hagard. This same story, ironically, found in Exodus, which in large part details God delivering the Jews ... out of slavery in Egypt. In fact, there’s a whole theological perspective called ‘liberation theology’ one could look into.
I’ll leave off in saying, every Christian is no stranger to those cherry pick lines, justifying their interpretations, without understanding the full scope of the Bible, which, unfortunately it would seem for some, does not end with the Old Testament. And again, maybe all I was looking for was a small nod to the bevy of abolitionists, radical and those less so, who identified with sects or ideas of Christianity. I was left thinking but for Lincoln’s staunch moral stance of America’s founding documents and statehood those backward Christian ‘thinker(s)’ of the Union, clinging to slavery, did not triumph. If nothing else, I found it a cautionary tale to any professed Christian on Hopkins. That being, taking a myopic view of the Word to justify an abhorrence. I would ask Hopkins what God’s response was to Cain in asking “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
I was not attempting to make Christianity a slave apologist doctrine. My point here was to explain some views contemporary to the Civil War on slavery. One of these, unfortunately, was that the Bible was used as a justification. Many Americans believed this way in the early and middle 19th century. And many didn't, as well. This view was still common and often glanced over by historians. Even then I did not expand as much as I would have liked to on Christianity's influence in American slavery. In history we must bring uncomfortably things into the light to study, and unfortunately this is one if them. I don't presently believe every Christian is a slavery apologist or blindly follows every word in the Bible, I know that isn't even close to true. I'm sorry you thought that I thought that way.
As to the "infallible" line I was neither being tongue in cheek or satiric. This is actually how Hopkins felt. He believed that he, despite his judgements, had to follow the letter of the law (in this case: God's). He believed this is how Christianity should operate. Perhaps I should have clarified. But he believes the Civil War was underway because Christians did not follow this set of beliefs. I'm using Hopkins as a case study, not a stand in for millions of Christians in 1863 or the millions in 2023.
To add onto Vaughn's comment, I understand using the juxtaposition of Hopkins's views compared to Lincoln's, but the unintentional effect is that it implies that Christianity holds (or at least held) a similar view as Hopkins. Of course, there were Christians who used their bibles to justify slavery (we often saw this in the South) but that is at odds with the overarching readings of the Bible. The Bible condemns slavery and unjust servitude through it's staunch advocacy of human dignity and the way it deals with the issue of slavery.
Historically, America had the ideal of "all men are created equal" and the Constitutional Congress even debated outlawing slavery from the start of the country. However, they realized that if they outlawed slavery immediately, the country would fall apart before it ever got together. So they kept slavery to keep the country. But over time, the USA worked towards that ideal of equality, with President Thomas Jefferson signing restrictions on the slave
trade, and all the way up to the freedom of the slaves and the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
Similarly, the story of the Bible and God shows that the world was brutal. Slavery and rape were rampant in conquest. However, God had a plan for His people. Unfortunately, they were so wicked they would have rejected every bit of the moral law if presented with its entirety, so the Bible shows a sort of "12-step program" if you will. It says "if you have slaves, treat them well" and then "don't take Hebrews as your slaves" and "release your slaves every jubilee year" and so on until Christ comes and fulfills the law. The Epistles of Paul write about how we are all one in Christ: Gentile and Jew, man and woman, servant and free. This would've been unthinkable to the Israelites in Genesis or Exodus, but it was made possible through the story of our salvation.
Also for what it's worth, different denominations of Christianity interpret scripture differently. As a Catholic, we have organized the ten commandments throughout church history as follows: 9. Do not covet thy neighbor's wife; 10. Do not covet thy neighbor's goods. It was separated to emphasize the humanity of the wife - she wasn't property of the husband but her own person.