One of the things I remember best about my time at Duke Divinity School was a story told by Stuart C. Henry, professor of American Christianity. The tale concerned a beautiful courtesan and the monk who set out to convert her. Slowly but surely, the young woman was drawn to the monk's spirituality; eventually, she entered a convent and became a nun. But as the monk ministered to the courtesan, he found himself attracted to her sensuality. Eventually, he too was converted, surrendering his faith to the lure of physical pleasure.

Henry used this story to illustrate a historical process--a chiasmus--or a switching of positions. This process can also be seen in the historical process between North and South in American history. Originally, the North was a center of Orthodoxy in which Puritans set out to frame a Biblical Commonwealth, while the South was the region where the values of the Enlightenment were most popular. Over time, this state of affairs reversed itself. The North became a major center for such rationalist faiths as Transcendentalism and Unitarianism while the South came to be dominated by evangelicalism in wake of the Second Great Awakening. One of the major reasons for this shift was the institution of slavery.

Slavery and the South

In his book, Life and Labor in the Old South, Ulrich B. Phillips wrote: "Let us begin with the climate." The South was a region that was hot, humid, and good for the growing of cotton and other labor intensive crops. Malaria was a significant problem, and when the labor supply proved insufficient, slave labor was imported.

In the early years of the nation, both North and South viewed slavery as a "necessary evil." A broad consensus existed on this point, one that had been reflected in the Northwest Ordinance which prohibited slavery in the new territories of the nation. Slavery was an embarassment to a people who had just fought a revolution for liberty, and if was in clear conflict with the natural rights ideology of the nation. In both North and South, few believed slavery had any future, and yet both profited from this "peculiar institution." The North profited from trade in the South's agricultural goods. And the South profited directly from the sale of those products, principally cotton and tobacco. In the early years of the republic slavery was present in both regions, and if there was any difference in the views of the two regions towards slavery it was that while both viewed it as a "necessary evil," the North elected to emphasize "evil," while the South accented "necessary."

Although it is often overlooked, the South during this early period was the home to a strong anti-slavery movement. From 1808-1831, the South was the leader in the anti-slavery movement, the opposition to slavery was better organized in the South than in the North. Societies were founded in Kentucky in 1808, Tennessee in 1815, and in North Carolina in 1816. By 1826, 45 Anti-Slavery societies had been founded in North Carolina alone. The South was better served by Anti-Slavery newspapers than the North, and many were printed in the region with little or no opposition. Moreover, the South was the home to a strong free black community populated by carpenters, day laborers, and seamstresses.

The decline of these anti-slavery values can be traced to the invention of the Cotton Gin in 1793. Eli Whitney made his discovery at Nathaniel Greene's plantation on Cumberland Island, Georgia. There he watched a tom cat try to reach a chicken in a coop. His claws would go through the wire mesh, and pull the feathers out with each swipe. Whitney suddenly realized such a system might be created to separate cotton fibers from cotton seeds. As a result of this invention, the South in 1790 produced 4000 bales of cotton, while in 1860 it harvested 4 1/2 million bales.

As the production of cotton increased following the invention of the Cotton Gin, there was a corresponding increase in slavery and the importation of slaves. The South came to be convinced that slavery was fundamental to the economic well-being of the region. British and New England textile mills were calling for more cotton, and the demand could be meet only with slave labor.

The Crisis of Fear

This shift in sentiments was hastened by the debate over Missouri in 1819, and the Denmark Vesey Affair of 1822. In the Missouri debates, for the first time, slavery was made to be a moral issue, angering the South. While they did not directly defend slavery, these debates planted the seeds for a pro-slavery arguement. Vesey was a slave who won a lottery of $1500, and purchased his freedom for $600. A prosperous carpenter, he was deeply angered by the fact that his wives and children remained slaves, and that he--despite his freedom--continued to labor under the stigma of inferiority. Bright, well traveled, and well-read, he studied the debates over slavery during the Missouri Crisis, and concluded the time had come to rebel against the institution. Using his freedom to move about in Charleston, as well as the skills of his lieutenant, Gullah Jack, a witch doctor born in Angola, he organized a insurrection. Conspirators were given "parched corn and ground nuts to eat the morning of the rebellion, and a crab claw to carry at the moment of revolution. These tokens, the revered witch doctor promised, would invoke the aid of the African gods and protect rebels against capture." Most conspirators were trusted house servants. Eventually two slaves confessed to the rebellion, and it was stopped just hours before it was to be implemented. When the scale of the conspiracy became evident, 35 slaves were hanged and 37 banished.

The growing threat of servile rebellion, caused a closing of ranks within the South. In the midst of a "crisis of fear" that resulted from this and other acts of rebellion by slaves or free blacks, anti-slavery groups came to be viewed as a threat to domestic tranquility. Such agitation, it was believed, was stirring blacks to rebellion. As a result harsh new laws were passed that prohibited teaching of slaves to read or write, and restricting the movements of free blacks. In North Carolina, free blacks were disenfranchised. In this atmosphere of growing defensiveness, Georgia passed it's Negro Seaman law which prohibited black seamen from venturing into the surrounding country side for fear they would spread insurrection. When this law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Georgia continued to enforce it anyway defying the federal government and effectively nullifying the Court's ruling.

The last gasp of Southern anti-slavery sentiment was in the Great Debate that took place in the Virginia Legislature in 1832 following the rebellion of Nat Turner. This debate was widely reported on throughout the region. In the end, the effort to outlaw slavery was voted down 73-58. Following this vote, opposition to slavery across the region declined markedly. From this point on, politicians began to get in the act, undertaking to out do one another in their defense of slavery. Thus began the great intellectual effort of the antebellum South: the development of a full-blown defense of slavery. Within six years time, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina would become the first to publicly characterize slavery as a "positive good."

As antislavery was drying up in land of Cotton, it was taking on new vitality North of the Mason-Dixon line. During the 1830's a growing assault on slavery was led by William Lloyd Garrison, and other abolitionists. Authur and Lewis Tappan, two prosperous merchants, threw their financial support to this effort. These abolitionists called for immediate emancipation, to be accomplished gradually. Tons of tracts were issued, and societies and state conventions were organized. Many of those drawn to this movement were converts from the revivals of the Second Great Awakening, and they spoke the language of the revivals attacking slavery as a a great sin, and a moral pox afficting the nation.

The South Responds

The attacks on slavery mounted by the Abolitionists stung Southern evangelicals who rejected the abolitionist characterization of them as evil. Denominational authorities from both North and South also reacted strongly to the abolitionist campaign. One example of this reactivity was the effort made by Methodists to gag abolitionists in the church who were deemed to be a threat to the order of the church. The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church ordered their preachers "to abstain from all abolition movements and associations, and refrain from patronizing any of their publications." They were willing to take this step because they feared that such advocacy might hurt the patronage of the church in the South. Nor were the Methodists alone in this. Roman Catholic bishops did something very similar when they refused to pronounce slavery an evil.

One response to the Abolitionists was the genesis of a pro-slavery argument. It had its orgins in South Carolina in the 1820's. Thomas Cooper, the President of South Carolina College and a Deist, and Richard Furman, President of the State Baptist Convention in 1823 were both instrumental in this effort. Furman, for instance, developed a Biblical defense of slavery that had strong appeal in the evangelical culture that existed in the wake of the Second Great Awakening. (Ham, it was said, was the father of all Blacks. Abraham held slaves. Leviticus enjoins the children of Israel to take slaves from the heathens. Philemon is told to return to master by Paul. Jesus never attacked the institution of slavery.)

The pro-slavery argument took other forms. Thomas Dew drew on the teachings of Aristotle with its orders of existence to justify existing social arrangements. Dew painted a portrait of the South that bore a remarkable resemblance to Rome or Greece in which culture and higher thought were made possible by slave labor, just as had been true in the ancient world. Here again, slavery is seen as a positive good, rather than an institution to be apologized for.

But the pro-slavery argument also emerged from some surprising quarters. Despite the strong evangelical thrust in the South, some in the region were willing to entertain heterodox ideas in order to defend the "peculiar institution. Josiah Nott--for instance--argued that the races had different origins, and contended for a plural creation, an idea at odds with Genesis. The races, he contended, were in reality different species. (An interesting sidelight here is that this idea was popularized in Europe by a Frenchman named Gobineau. One of the admirers of Gobineau's ideas was Houston Stuart Chamberlain, a forerunner of Nazi racial theory.)

An Analysis

What happened within the South that led to the launch of this kind of crusade? Why did they feel this pressing need to defend slavery?

In the heat of the Second Great Awakening, there had been a widespread recognition of an implicit equality within evangelical Christianity. The ground was level at the foot of cross, or at least at the altar of a camp meeting. And yet, there were countervailing economic forces at work as well. It should be noted that not every Southerner owned slaves during this period.. In fact, only 1 in 11 did. But the major molders of public opinion were often holders of slavers. This was true of educators, doctors, politicians, and preachers. Indeed, Richard Furman--the originator of the Biblical defense of slavery was one such pastor. In South Carolina, for instance, 40% of Baptist preachers owned slaves. It is axiomatic that the beneficiaries of power are generally opposed to measures that would destroy their vested interests.

This is not to say that Southerners weren't guilty over the shift that was taking place, as James Oakes makes clear in the Ruling Race. In the chapter entitled "The Convenient Sin," Oakes examines the diaries and other personal writings of Southerners and discovers that many were deeply troubled by their involvement in slavery, and attempted in various ways to rationalize or justify their participation in this terrible evil. Many became convinced that they were going to hell. Yet, there was too much money to be made. As a result, they could not bring themselves to give up such a lucrative system. Slavery became a political issue they could not control. One's faith could only be applied to issues of personal morality like drinking, card-playing, and sex.

The Fruits of Division

As the nation grew further and further apart, the first signs of a fraying social fabric occurred in the nation's extended religious families: the denominations. Like much of the surrounding culture, they shared a heritage, a culture, and a language of faith that was largely homogeneous. It was this fact, that made their divergence on the question of slavery so traumatic.

The largest denomination in the nation was the first to experience the divisive power of slavery. The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church met in New York City in 1844 amidst an intense national debate over the admission of Texas to the Union. At issue was whether it would be admitted as slave or free. Not surprisingly given the political environment, the issue of slavery quickly came to dominate the proceedings. Delegates from Northern states introduced the issue when they questioned whether James Andrew, Bishop of Georgia, could own slaves and still remain a bishop of the church. It did not matter that these slaves belonged technically to his wife, or that manumission was against the law in Georgia. Nor did it matter that Andrews offered to renounce any ownership interest by securing them to his wife with a deed of trust. Northerners believed any association with such an evil, necessary or otherwise, precluded his continued service to the church. But they were not alone in pushing the issue. Although Andrews himself wanted to resign rather than risk the division of the church, the Southern delegates would not permit it. Such an outcome would acknowledge slavery to be a sin, something few Southerners were now willing to do publically. After a hot debate, delegates from both regions voted to separate the church, and by May, 1845, the Southern conferences in a declaration of independence had seceeded and formed the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

Baptists, the second largest denomination at the time, also underwent a similar division over the same issue. Northern Baptists raised the issue of whether slaveholders could be accepted as missionaries. They believed that the willful participation in such a sinful institution was an impediment to appointment, and refused to take any step that might imply they were blessing the holding of slaves. The South was equally determined not to acquise in this stigmatization of slaveholding, or to take any action that suggest that holding slaves was immoral. As a result, in 1845, dissident Southerners withdrew to form the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845.

These two events, along with similar events in other communions, did more than separate a million and a half Methodists and a similar number of Baptists. This splintering of denominations also helped add to the sectional antagonism that was weighing on the bonds of national union. Where the co-religionists of the two regions had moderated their views somewhat to avoid alienating their brothers and sisters prior to separation,, after the denominations split the argument over slavery intensified as partisans on both sides were less constrained by the counterweight of opposition.

Christians, both North and South, shared a common belief in a strong conversion experience. The belief that a sinner needed to repent and be converted was no respecter of regions. But despite this common faith, the two regions quickly began to move in different directions where religion was concerned.

The South, for instance, came to disdain social activism out of the fear that it could lead to an unwanted intrusiveness into slavery. At the same time, Northern revivalism came to view social activism in a very different light. Social reform was seen as being fundamental to the task of a Christian, along with the political means to achieve it. In the South, preaching tended to focus on sin and guilt, whereas in the North there was a growing emphasis on the doctrines of sanctification and perfection. Where the North saw the general state of society getting better through the revivals, and believed society was moving progressively toward the Kingdom of God, the South developed a fixation on the individual and the ravages of sin. In the North, the evangelical hegemony was challenged by growing numbers of Unitarians, Transcendentalists, Mormons, and Roman Catholics, whereas none of these groups had any strong presence in the South. Beginning in 1835, the immigration of large numbers of Irish, Germans, Lutherans, Jews, and Catholics, meant that Northern Evangelicalism was but one of many religious currents, while the absence of immigration to any significant degree in the South, meant that evangelicalism was the only religious option.

Gradually, the regions even showed divergence in their ideas about conversion. In the South, conversion became more uniform and controlled, a development that reflected the tightening of social convention. In the North, the struggle with the self gave way to a struggle for the reform of society.

Unfortunately, the experience of the churches would mirror that of the nation. They were the canary in the coal mine, the leading indicator of the forces tearing at the nation and its soul. By 1850, brother was ready to take up arms against brother, and ten years latter they would. But the seeds of conflict had been sown some years before.