Where We Are & How We Got Here # 6 of 14
John Weaver | SermonAudio
| Lecture Metadata | Details |
|---|---|
| Speaker | John Weaver |
| Source | SermonAudio |
| Media ID | 230415252 |
| Subject | Civil Government |
| Course | Civil Government: Power, Nations, and Constitutional Order: Where We Are & How We Got Here |
| Genre | Sermon |
| Date | 1998-08-09 |
| Dictation Name | |
| Book | Book 119: Where We Are & How We Got Here — Chapter 6 |
| Source Timed Segments | 64 |
Synopsis: John Weaver continues his series on American history and slavery by examining how the South came to possess slaves. He argues that the North, particularly New England, was primarily responsible for the transatlantic slave trade, while the South merely purchased slaves already brought to America. Weaver contends that the Bible allows slavery under certain conditions, and that the North hypocritically condemned the South for slaveholding after profiting from the trade. He emphasizes that no slaves were brought to America on Southern ships, and that the Confederate flag is not a symbol of racism.
Formatted Transcript
Introduction and Review of Biblical Slavery
Weaver reviews his series theme and previous teachings on biblical slavery, emphasizing that the Bible allows slavery while condemning man-stealing and kidnapping.
Open our Bibles to the book of Leviticus, chapter 25. Leviticus 25. Let me just say this for all's sake and for any others that happen to be visiting. I have been dealing with the general theme, where we are and how we got here. And I began back in the 1840s. I have dealt with the abolitionist revolution. I've dealt with the theological revolution. I've dealt with the political and the economic issues in the 1860s, and for the last two weeks, I've dealt with a biblical view of slavery, part one and two, which happen to be taped number four and five.
Now, it is not my intention to go back and review all of those scriptures on slavery, but I do want to point out the fact that both the Old Testament and the New Testament allows slavery. Man-stealing is condemned. Kidnapping is condemned. Selling an individual into slavery is condemned. But I gave you six or seven ways that a man could lawfully get into slavery. The only way that was unlawful was kidnapping him and forcibly selling him into slavery. So the Bible does indeed allow for slavery.
The Bible Is Not Politically Correct
Weaver argues that the Bible has never been politically correct and gives examples of biblical positions that contradict modern humanistic views, including its allowance of slavery.
Now I want you to stop and think, and I could go on, but let me just give you several examples. The same Bible that condemns kidnapping and man-stealing allows slavery. The same Bible that condemns abortion allows capital punishment. The same Bible that condemns murder also allows self-defense. The same Bible that condemns sodomy also allows heterosexual marital sex. So the Bible, you could say, is an enigma to a humanist, to an abolitionist, to an unbeliever. He does not understand the Bible, nor does he want to. So the world, the humanist, the abolitionist, condemns slavery as something that is vile and wicked in and of itself, whereas the Word of God certainly does not do so. The Bible allows for slavery.
The Question of Southern Slavery's Origin
Weaver poses the question of how the South acquired slaves and asserts that no slaves were brought to America on Southern ships.
Now the question is this, is the South therefore wicked and wrong and to be forever condemned because it allowed slavery? You can ask this question another way. Was the North righteous in the fact that it condemned slavery and wanted, quote-unquote, to abolish slavery? Well, to answer these questions, you have to ask another question. How did the South ever become or come into possession of those slaves to begin with? Did southern ships go to Africa and capture those helpless natives and bring them back and force them to work on southern plantations? And the answer is no. Let me tell you this. There was not one slave brought over to this country on a southern ship.
Historical Background of the Slave Trade
Weaver traces the slave trade from the Portuguese and Dutch to the English, noting England's dominant role and the founding of Jamestown and the first arrival of Africans in 1619.
Now that may surprise you. But not one slave came into this country on a southern ship. Let me give you just a short background of slavery, and it's not my intent today to delve deeply into the first part of this subject, because you could go into it for a long, long time. You've heard the old adage that the oldest profession is prostitution. But I'll just about challenge that, because the oldest profession has probably been dealing in slaves. You see, the Portuguese and the Dutch were deeply involved in slavery well before England and well before America ever got involved. In fact, before the Portuguese and the Dutch got involved with it, the Arabs and the Africans themselves were involved in it. What the Portuguese and the Dutch would do is they would transport the natives from Africa to their sugar cane plantations in the West Indies and in Brazil.
It was in 1562 when the English jumped into the slave trade when Sir John Hawkins sold a cargo of blacks in Hispaniola. In 1672, listen, the King of England formed the Royal African Trading Company and put the Duke of York at its head. In 1712, through the Treaty of Asiento, the English monarch and England gained a monopoly over the slave trade. In fact, in 1749, what the king did was he just kind of threw the trade open to any Englishman who wanted to get involved in it, but then put a 10% tax on each slave. So instead of the king just having the Royal African Company, now anybody can get into it if you're an Englishman, as long as you pay the king a 10% tax. Now, England was responsible. Just England.
Now, we're not talking about the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the Arabs. But just England was responsible for the transportation of over 5 million Africans to all parts of the world by 1776. Now, very clearly, England was not selling slaves here in America after 1776, because they had been defeated. But I want you to think about something, and I'm going to come back to that thought in just a moment.
But Jamestown was founded in 1607. Okay? 1607. Plymouth was not until 1620. So Jamestown was founded in 1607. In 1619, an Englishman sold 20 black slaves that he had pirated from a Spanish ship to the people who lived in Jamestown.
The Origin of Permanent Black Slavery in America
Weaver explains that permanent black slavery began in 1653 with the case of Anthony Johnson, a black man who successfully sued to keep another black man as a permanent slave.
Now, I don't want you to get upset right now over the word sold. Because every time you hear the word sold, today with our connotation, we think of permanent slavery. But do you realize the word sold, or selling, also referred to what we would call indentured servitude. Here's a man that sold himself for seven years. He was not a permanent slave, but he was just merely an indentured servant. So in 1619, when those first 20 blacks were sold to the inhabitants of Jamestown, that did not mean that those blacks were sold into permanent slavery. They were just simply purchased as indentured servants. Now listen to me. Permanent black slavery did not come into existence until 1653. There was a man by the name of Anthony Johnson, who is known as the father of Negro slavery, or the father of permanent black slavery in Virginia. Now, in 1653, a Negro man by the name of John Casor, C-A-S-O-R, complained that his master, Anthony Johnson, had kept him in servitude longer than the legal time.
Now that was indeed a serious offense back then. And so Johnson, not knowing what to do, and certainly frightened to say the least, freed his slave, John Casor, only to find out that what Casor had done then was to bind himself to another man by the name of Parker, because Parker had enabled him and aided him in obtaining his freedom. Well, Anthony Johnson then turned around and sued Parker. And he said, look, I released this black slave of mine, and all he's done is gone over and bound himself to a man by the name of Parker, and now he's his slave. And here was Anthony Johnson's argument. John Casor is not an English servant, or an English subject, I should say. He is an African.
He is not under the laws of England in any way whatsoever. And so what Johnson did then was to sue Parker to get Casor back as a permanent slave because Casor was not an English subject, and therefore the laws of indenture did not apply to him, and therefore Johnson said, I have the right to have him as a permanent slave. Guess what? Johnson won the case. And so the case is Johnson v. Parker out of Northampton County, Virginia.
Now, Anthony Johnson then is the father of black slavery. He's the father of permanent black slavery. What is exquisitely interesting and what is vitally important for you to understand is that Anthony Johnson himself was a black man. He had been one of the original 19 or 20 that had been sold in 1619 to Jamestown. He had settled in the area of Accomack, had obtained some acreage, and had some money, and was therefore enabled to have slaves. Accomack, Virginia, is right below Chincoteague. It's on the island there. And so Anthony Johnson is the father of black slavery. And he himself was a black.
Black Slaveholders and Slavery in the North
Weaver documents that many blacks owned slaves and that slavery existed in Northern states well into the 19th century, challenging the notion that only Southern whites held slaves.
Now what many people do not realize is there were a multitude of black slaveholders in America. Larry Kroger in his book, Black Slave Owners, has documented accounts of black slave owners in America. According to the 1830 census record, there were more than 10,000 blacks owned by other blacks who were referred to as the free men of color. In fact, in 1860, in Sumter, South Carolina, William Ellison, a black, had 70 slaves working his plantation. In Louisiana, in the St. Landry Parish, Auguste Donateau, a black, owned 70 slaves that worked his 500-acre plantation. Even in New York, eight men, eight free men of color, owned 17 slaves in 1830. Think that, well, just Southern white folks had slaves.
Hey, let me give you a little more. The record goes even further. In 1840, there were slaves in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Delaware, the District of Columbia—let me spell that out, Washington, D.C.—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Wisconsin, as well as the states in the South. Listen to this. Even at the very date of Southern secession, when South Carolina seceded and withdrew in 1860, even at that time there were still slaves in Delaware, Kansas, Nebraska, New Jersey, Utah, the District of Columbia, and just in Delaware alone there were over 1,800 slaves. That was in 1860.
Now let's go back to the original question. How in the world did the South get the slaves anyhow? Clearly after 1783, after the War for Independence had been won, and the King of England was forced to recognize the 13 colonies as 13 sovereign states, very clearly the King of England then was not transporting slaves over into this country, because he had been a defeated monarch. Well, who was it that engaged in the slave trade? It was the North.
New England's Dominance in the Slave Trade
Weaver provides extensive evidence that New England states, especially Massachusetts and Rhode Island, were the primary transporters of slaves to America, driven by enormous profits.
Let me be a little more specific. It was the New England states. Do you realize the first state to legalize slavery was Massachusetts? By the way, Massachusetts was one of the leading states. In 1641, in the Body of Liberties, which is a code of laws for Massachusetts, here is what one statute says. "There shall be no bond slavery amongst us unless it be lawful captives taken in just wars and such strangers as are sold to us." Now, both of those happen to be biblical in that sense of the word, but Massachusetts is still the first state to legalize slavery.
Now, it's a known fact that New Englanders had a penchant for dealing in human flesh. I want you to understand something. When the law says here that there shall be no slavery amongst us unless it be lawful captives taken in just wars, who would the people of Massachusetts be fighting back then? Indians. Do you realize the people of Massachusetts captured and enslaved the Pequot Indians and sold them to work on the sugar cane plantations in the West Indies? Now let me tell you something. What do you think a just war is back then? Any Indian that might do something and that you could easily or quickly capture and then you could turn around and sell him for a profit?
Don't you see how some of that can be stretched by anyone who's eager for gain? Do you realize it was from Marblehead, Massachusetts, that the first slave ship was outfitted and sent to Africa and returned with a cargo of blacks in 1638? And the ship was appropriately named The Desire. So Massachusetts is the colony, is the state that led the way in transporting blacks into this country. I want to give you a quote. I want you to listen to this. This is absolutely mind-boggling. But a New England historian records that the Puritans of Massachusetts carried on a large trade in Negroes with the Guinea Chiefs.
Now I'm going to deal with how they traded a little bit later, but here is what the Boston Newsletter quoted, and we're talking back then. The Boston Newsletter stated that during the decade of 1755 to 1766, which is only 11 years, the importers landed on the shores of Massachusetts no fewer than 23,000 blacks. Now that was just blacks carried to Massachusetts. That's blacks carried to other places and sold. That's just 23,000 landed in Massachusetts. According to the same writer, Massachusetts alone in the single year 1750 used in this traffic 15,000 hogsheads of rum because they were just trading rum for the blacks. You see, I'm going to tell you in just a moment, there was unheard of profits in the slave trade. And I can assure you, and I'm going to call some names a little bit later, that the people in the New England states made their money in slavery. Nor was Massachusetts alone in the activity in the trade in Negroes.
In 1750, Newport, that is Newport, Rhode Island, Newport's fleet of slavers numbered 170 vessels. 170 vessels. Let me tell you something. I'm going to give you an illustration before I end today for one yacht. One yacht was outfitted just to bring back slaves and one yacht brought back 420. Now what in the world do you think that a ship built to bring slaves back over here would carry? So Newport had 170 slave ships in 1750.
Connecticut had a part of the new commerce. The New Englander commented in 1787 that Rhode Island then held first place in the traffic in African Negroes, that the trade constituted one of the colony's leading activities and was the source of the wealth of the majority of its citizens. Governor Hopkins is the authority for the record that for three decades prior to 1764, the colony sent annually to Africa some 18 ships laden with 1,800 hogsheads of rum to trade. Now I want to just tell you how profitable this was. Huge profits. I'll give you more figures a little bit later, but you could buy a young adult male Negro for a hundred gallons of rum. You could buy a young adult woman for 85 gallons of rum. You could buy a child for 65 gallons of rum. How much money does it take to make a gallon of rum? Not much. Not much. I want to show you that these people would make well over a hundred percent profit. Some of them were making two and three hundred percent profits in dealing with the slaves. John S. Tilley in his book, The Coming Glory, has documented this, and I want to read it to you. Listen carefully.
Boy, this ought to blow your mind. As early as 1816, John Randolph of Virginia resorted to his choicest assortment of invective in paying his respects to the slave traffic, then in full swing in Washington, D.C. In Washington, D.C. This is 1816. He observed that it was not uncommon for frequenters of the Capitol building to look out upon the long lines of blacks handcuffed in pairs, a chain extending the length of the line like, to use his own words, a butcher's drove of hobbled cattle. So in 1816 he said there were long lines of blacks in Washington D.C. Twenty years later, the traffic had grown to even larger proportions. Listen, the nation's capital had become the chief center of the slave market. In 1836, Washington D.C. was the chief slave trading market.
This was not the finale of the city's participation. Abraham Lincoln was to discover upon his arrival in Washington in 1847, and the new congressman gazed wide-eyed upon slave markets described by him as a sort of Negro livery stable. In his inquiries concerning all these Africans, he was told that they were only temporarily pending their transfer to southern markets. Now listen, in 1859, in New York City, under the shadow of the old Trinity Church, there was a slave market. Do you realize that the people involved in this were not crooks and criminals the way you and I would think of them? We'd think the mafia would certainly be involved in something like this. No. What are women? The elite? Listen. A captain of finance of New York City was the author of a calculation regarding the outgoing income of a prose African venture. Now listen.
The overall cost, he figured, at $300,000. Now that would be outfitting the ship, the men, the rum, maybe even building the ship. The original cost was $300,000. According to his estimate, the expedition, this is one ship, the expedition should bring back over 1,200 slaves.
Now that ought to answer your question. If Rhode Island had 170 ships, and each ship could bring back over 1,200 slaves, and I'm sure you could make more than one voyage a year, you figure out for yourself how many slaves that Rhode Island would just be bringing back itself with 170 ships and over 1,200 per ship. These would sell in the market at an average price of $650. The returns would total $780,000. Thus, the fascinating net profit reached the sum of $480,000. So you would more than double your money on each trip.
Now, as I said earlier, the slave market was not run by the mafia, but it was run by the rich, and the political and the social elite. Many of you in here have heard of Faneuil Hall. If you haven't, you should. Faneuil Hall is known as the Cradle of Liberty. That's where many of our forefathers sat. That is where the men met right before the Boston Tea Party. Faneuil Hall was given by Peter Faneuil. Peter Faneuil himself was a slave dealer. He was a slave trader.
He owned a ship named the Jolly Bachelor that constantly brought slaves back to be sold. The DeWolf family of Rhode Island, the Brown family, Josiah Franklin, the stepbrother of Benjamin Franklin, was a slave trader. John Hancock was involved in the slave trade. And if you will study the records, you will find out that such New England names as Channing, Tweedy, Brimley, Carr, and Cranston were those who purchased the slaves.
Now, I want you to understand something. It was the New England states that were primarily involved in the slave trade. It was the New England states that primarily condemned the South later on for having the slaves. Let me give you a quote. W.B. Wheaton, who wrote a book, The History of New England, said this, "Massachusetts writers have always been especially sore at the point where the trade in African slaves is touched. If they had admitted that in fact none knew at the time the enormity of the offense, and that Massachusetts partook of the common public sentiment which trafficked in Indians and Negroes as perilously as in cattle, their argument would have been more consistent." Now here's the author of a New England history saying that Massachusetts trafficked in human flesh as carelessly as someone would traffic in cattle.
The North's Continued Illegal Slave Trading
Weaver shows that despite the 1808 ban, Northerners continued illegal slave trading, with evidence from presidents and Congress up to 1861.
Now, the slave trade, constitutionally speaking, must become illegal, unlawful, in 1808. By the way, and I'll bring out some of this later, not today, but later on in our studies. It was Virginia and the South that wanted to abolish slavery at the Constitutional Convention. That was one reason George Mason refused to sign the Constitution, because they would not deal with the slavery issue the way it should be dealt with. Would you like to guess who it was that was pushing to allow the slave trade to continue to 1808? It was the New England states. It was the North. It's not the South. The South wanted it abolished. But even after the cutoff date of 1808, slave trading by the North continued. Listen to this. In 1816, President Madison was calling upon the Congress to quote, "to take cognizance of the violations and evasions of the law on the part of unworthy citizens." What were these unworthy citizens doing? They were ignoring the law of the land.
They were still continuing to transport slaves. In 1820, the Congress considered it necessary to pass an act damning the maritime slave trade as piracy. So in 1820 the North was still engaged in trading in slaves. The same year, the Secretary of the Treasury, Crawford, admitted to a committee of Congress, here's what he says, quote, "it appears from an examination of the records of this office that no particular instructions have ever been given by the Secretary of the Treasury under the original or supplemental acts prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the United States." So, in 1820, what's he saying? Although the slave trade was supposed to have been stopped in 1808. Why? We've implemented no regulations concerning it. And so they just simply keep doing it.
Now listen, I want to give you two more quotes in light of this. December the 3rd, 1860. President Buchanan, who was right before Lincoln, made this statement. Listen to what he says. Quote, "it is with great satisfaction that I communicate the fact that since the date of my last annual message, that is to Congress and the people, not a single slave has been imported into the United States in violation of the laws prohibiting the African slave trade. This statement is founded upon a thorough examination and investigation of the subject." That's President Buchanan, December 3, 1860. He said, man, we've got whipped. There have been no slaves imported. However, when Lincoln became president, March 4, 1861, here's what he said, December 3, 1861, to Congress. "It is a subject of congratulation that the efforts which have been made for the suppression of this inhumane traffic have been recently attended with unusual success. Five vessels being fitted out for the slave trade have been seized and condemned." That was 1861. What did Lincoln just get out of his mouth? We caught five slave trade ships.
Where did they catch them? Not in the South. The South didn't even have a navy! The South didn't have the ships! As late as 1858, just two years prior to the secession of South Carolina, the yacht named the Wanderer landed 420 slaves on the Georgia coast, and the yacht was flying the flag of the Yacht Club of New York. 1858. John S. Tilley in his book, he quotes Du Bois, who wrote a book, W.E. Du Bois, his book was Suppression of the Slave Trade, and here's what Du Bois wrote. As late as 1861, the Congress of the United States was appropriating nearly two million dollars in an effort to stamp out the slave trade. That was 1861. Lincoln said we just caught five ships. Now two million dollars may not sound like too much today, but two million dollars was a lot of money back in 1861. We didn't have the inflation.
The South's Limited Role and the North's Hypocrisy
Weaver argues that the South purchased less than 6% of slaves brought from Africa and that the North hypocritically condemned the South after profiting from the trade.
Well, that sounds good, doesn't it? Until you realize and study and you find out that the South only purchased less than 6% of the slaves. Only 1 out of 20 slaves was brought to America. The rest were taken to Brazil and West Indies and other ports.
Now let me ask you a quick question. Would less than 6% stop a man in a business today? No, nor would it have stopped him then. He would have still had 94 to 95%. And with the money that they were making on those slaves, that is exactly why they kept up. Let me give you one final quote today. You'll find this in Robert L. Dabney's book, A Defense of Virginia and the South, and it's one of the greatest little books you'll ever read. But Dabney said this, quote, "it is one of the strange freaks of history that this Commonwealth," and he's talking about Virginia, "it is one of the strange freaks of history that this commonwealth, which was guiltless in this thing, and which always presented a steady protest against the enormity of slavery, should become, in spite
of herself, the home of the largest number of African slaves found within any of the states, and thus should be held up by the abolitionists as the representative of the sin of slaveholding, while Massachusetts, which next to England, the pioneer and patroness of the slave trade, and chief criminal, have gained for her share the wages of iniquity, instead of the persons of the victims, have arrogated herself the post of chief accuser of Virginia." Robert Louis Dabney was a chief of staff of Stonewall Jackson. He is a Presbyterian theologian. He's written a large number of books. I have seven or eight of his books. And what is he saying? He's saying Massachusetts and New England made the money. They got the wealth from the slaves. We ended up with the slaves. And I can show you, and I'll quote some next week probably. There was a South all along that was protesting slavery, and one of them stopped. But the North made their money, and the blacks ended up in the South. And then the North turns around and arrogates itself up to the position of condemning the South for holding the slaves after the North had sold the slaves to the South.
Conclusion: The South as Victim of Northern Aggression
Weaver concludes that the South treated slaves as family and taught them Christianity, while the North sold them and later stirred up racial strife; the war was about subjugation, not slavery.
Now folks, let me tell you something. It is strange, but true. The North condemned the South for doing what the Bible allowed, that is to hold slaves as long as they're treated biblically. And the North, who violated the scripture in selling men into slavery, receives no condemnation.
Now, does that sound right to you? Well, of course not. The way the slaves got to the South was through the North. Those of you who remember the first message that I preached, I showed you out of the abolitionist's own mouth how they hated and despised the slaves. Hated and despised the blacks. They were no friend of the black. They made their money in selling the blacks. And then they come down south, and I'm going to tell you, I can give you the documentation, I can give you the statistics, I can show you in black and white where the men who were raping the black women were the northern soldiers. And when those northern soldiers came to most southern towns, most of the blacks would hide themselves as well as the whites.
They did not run to them. The majority ran from them. Let me tell you something, folks. There is nothing wrong with believing the Bible. And there is certainly nothing wrong with knowing the truth. I'm going to bring out in the next messages the South's attitude towards slavery. I'm going to show you the race relations in the South. And I'll tell you this, I remember this as a boy. Many of you remember the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s? The South had no problems until the Northerners came down here and stirred it up.
Northern whites and northern blacks. And I want to tell you, if you will look in the last few years where the most bigotry and the most racial inequality is, guess where it is? It's in the North! Massachusetts was having all out riots because of the blacks just a few years ago. So the truth is this. It was the South who took the slaves in, treated them as family, taught them to work, taught many of them to read and write, taught them the principles of Christianity. It was the North who sold them. So the blacks want to be mad at anybody, they want to be mad against the North, not against the South.
The Confederate flag is not a racist flag. The South is not a racist section. We got the blacks from the North. And then you remember how the North appropriately passed all the laws after the war was over that the blacks could not come to the North or settle in their states? Let me repeat it one more time. The war was not over slavery. The war was over subjugation of the South and destruction of the South. Let's pray.
Study Guide
Major Themes
Biblical Allowance of Slavery
Summary: The Bible permits slavery under certain conditions, condemning only man-stealing and kidnapping, not the institution itself.
Evidence: Weaver states, 'the Bible does indeed allow for slavery' and cites Leviticus 25:44-46 as allowing permanent slavery of heathens.
Northern Responsibility for the Slave Trade
Summary: The North, especially New England, was primarily responsible for transporting slaves to America, not the South.
Evidence: Weaver says, 'There was not one slave brought over to this country on a southern ship' and details Massachusetts' and Rhode Island's involvement.
Hypocrisy of the North
Summary: The North condemned the South for slaveholding after having profited enormously from the slave trade.
Evidence: Weaver quotes Dabney: 'Massachusetts... gained for her share the wages of iniquity... have arrogated herself the post of chief accuser of Virginia.'
Economic Motivation of the Slave Trade
Summary: The slave trade was driven by immense profits, with returns often exceeding 100%.
Evidence: Weaver details the cost of slaves in rum and the net profit of $480,000 on a single voyage.
The South as Victim of Historical Misrepresentation
Summary: The South has been unfairly blamed for slavery, while the North's role has been obscured.
Evidence: Weaver argues that the Confederate flag is not racist and that the South treated slaves as family.
Key Arguments
The Bible allows slavery, so Southern slaveholding was not inherently sinful.
Summary: Since the Bible permits slavery, the South's practice of it was not wrong, provided slaves were treated biblically.
Evidence: Weaver says, 'the Bible allows for slavery' and contrasts it with humanistic condemnation.
No slaves were brought to America on Southern ships.
Summary: The transatlantic slave trade was conducted entirely by Northern and European ships, not Southern ones.
Evidence: Weaver states, 'There was not one slave brought over to this country on a southern ship.'
Permanent black slavery in America was initiated by a black man.
Summary: Anthony Johnson, a black man, won the legal case that established permanent black slavery in Virginia.
Evidence: Weaver recounts the case of Johnson v. Parker in 1653.
The North continued illegal slave trading long after it was banned.
Summary: Despite the 1808 ban, Northerners persisted in slave trading, as evidenced by presidential statements and seizures.
Evidence: Weaver cites Buchanan's and Lincoln's statements and the capture of slave ships in 1861.
The South purchased only a small fraction of slaves brought from Africa.
Summary: Less than 6% of slaves were brought to America; the rest went elsewhere, so Southern demand did not drive the trade.
Evidence: Weaver says, 'the South only purchased less than 6% of the slaves.'
Scripture References
Leviticus 25:44-46
Context: Weaver reads this passage to show that God allowed the Israelites to buy and permanently own slaves from the heathen nations.
John 8:32
Context: Weaver quotes Jesus' words, 'you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,' to emphasize the importance of knowing historical truth.
Historical References
Jamestown founded 1607; first Africans sold in 1619
Context: Weaver notes that the first Africans were sold to Jamestown residents by an Englishman in 1619, but as indentured servants, not permanent slaves.
Anthony Johnson and the case Johnson v. Parker (1653)
Context: Weaver describes how Anthony Johnson, a black man, successfully sued to make John Casor a permanent slave, establishing permanent black slavery in Virginia.
Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641) legalizes slavery
Context: Weaver cites this law as the first legalization of slavery in America, allowing enslavement of captives and strangers sold to them.
Newport, Rhode Island's 170 slave ships in 1750
Context: Weaver uses this statistic to illustrate the massive scale of Northern involvement in the slave trade.
Slave market in Washington D.C. (1816, 1836)
Context: Weaver quotes John Randolph's description of slave coffles in the capital and notes it became the chief slave market by 1836.
Slave market in New York City (1859)
Context: Weaver mentions a slave market near Trinity Church in New York City to show Northern involvement persisted late.
The Wanderer lands 420 slaves in Georgia (1858)
Context: Weaver cites this incident as evidence of continued illegal slave trading by Northerners just before the Civil War.
Robert L. Dabney's 'A Defense of Virginia and the South'
Context: Weaver quotes Dabney's argument that Massachusetts was the chief criminal in the slave trade but accused Virginia.
Important Quotes
There was not one slave brought over to this country on a southern ship.
Significance: Central claim that the South did not participate in the transatlantic slave trade.
No black slave ever came over here on a southern ship. They came on Yankee ships.
Significance: Reinforces the claim of Northern responsibility.
The war was not over slavery. The war was over subjugation of the South and destruction of the South.
Significance: Weaver's thesis about the true cause of the Civil War.
Discussion Questions
How does the biblical allowance of slavery challenge modern assumptions about morality and justice?
Context: Weaver argues that the Bible permits slavery, which conflicts with contemporary humanistic views.
What evidence does Weaver present to support the claim that the North was primarily responsible for the slave trade?
Context: Weaver provides historical data on New England's involvement and the absence of Southern slave ships.
How does the story of Anthony Johnson complicate the narrative of slavery as exclusively white oppression of blacks?
Context: Weaver recounts how a black man initiated permanent black slavery in Virginia.
Why does Weaver consider the North's condemnation of Southern slavery hypocritical?
Context: He argues the North profited from the trade and continued it illegally while blaming the South.
What implications does Weaver's argument have for contemporary views of the Confederate flag and Southern heritage?
Context: Weaver claims the Confederate flag is not racist and the South is not a racist section.
Applications
Knowing the truth brings freedom from guilt and manipulation.
Summary: Weaver urges believers to learn historical truth to avoid being controlled by false guilt imposed by others.
Evidence: Weaver says, 'if you can make a person feel guilty, then you have control over him... you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.'
Christians must submit to biblical authority over cultural narratives.
Summary: Weaver emphasizes that whatever God says is right, even when it contradicts popular opinion.
Evidence: Weaver states, 'We as Christians believe, number one, that God is right. Whatever God says is right.'
deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-04T14:37:51Z
deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-05T18:57:23Z