Posted on 04/20/2026 4:23:33 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
One of the great strengths of Abraham Lincoln was his ability to take complicated concepts and boil them down into an easily digestible argument that even his most basic audience could understand. This was an invaluable resource for Lincoln whether addressing a jury or a gathering of potential voters and he used it frequently throughout his life.
One of the best examples of this unique talent in his own handwriting comes to us from a document entitled “Pro-slavery Theology” here in the collections of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum.
Undated, though likely written in October of 1858 during the height of the Lincoln and Douglas debates, it is a scathing indictment of those who claimed that since slavery was present in the Bible that it must have met with God’s approval. He began by questioning that if blacks were truly inferior to whites then as good Christians shouldn’t whites provide more to those in need instead of taking what little they had. He summed this idea up by writing “'Give to him that is needy’ is the Christian rule of charity; but ‘Take from him that is needy’ is the rule of slavery.”
Undated, though likely written in October of 1858 during the height of the Lincoln and Douglas debates, it is a scathing indictment of those who claimed that since slavery was present in the Bible that it must have met with God’s approval. He began by questioning that if blacks were truly inferior to whites then as good Christians shouldn’t whites provide more to those in need instead of taking what little they had. He summed this idea up by writing “'Give to him that is needy’ is the Christian rule of charity; but ‘Take from him that is needy’ is the rule of slavery.”
He then turned his attention to those who claimed that it was the will of God that African Americans were enslaved. Lincoln admits there is “no contending against the Will of God” but concludes that God himself gives no audible answer on the subject and that the Bible “gives none -- or, at most, none but such as admits of a squabble, as to it’s meaning.” This would mean then that it was up to man, more specifically the slave owner to determine what precisely was the “Will of God” regarding the plight of the slave.
Mentioning specifically Reverend Frederick Ross who the previous year had published a book entitled Slavery Ordained of God, Lincoln poses a simple question. If the slave owner is the one interpreting “God’s Will,” would Reverend Ross voluntarily choose to surrender his slave and thereby be forced to work for his own bread, or retain his slave and continue to enjoy the benefits that slave provided?
Lincoln summed up the total issue in this way: “As a good thing, slavery is strikingly peculiar, in this, that it is the only good thing which no man ever seeks the good of, for himself.”
In this simple document, Lincoln points out the hypocrisy of using the Bible to justify slavery on others. Throughout his life Lincoln abhorred the South’s peculiar institution and those who defended it, including in this case those who attempted to invoke God as a justification for it.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Chattel slavery has no basis in the Bible. God sets men free.
I love Exodus.
It sets the standard that G-d expects men to be Free!
Explain Paul telling Onesimus to return to Philemon.
You clearly don’t know the definition of chattel slavery
“You clearly don’t know the definition of chattel slavery”
Actually I made sure of the definition right before I wrote. Romans had chattel slavery. You clearly aren’t well informed.
Lincoln believed that racial coexistence in the United States was fraught with conflict and that it would be better for both Black and white Americans if freed slaves emigrated to places like Africa, the Caribbean, or Central America.On August 14, 1862, Lincoln met with Black leaders at the White House to discuss this idea. He stated:
“Your race suffer from living among us, while ours suffer from your presence… It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated.”
I’m not recommending throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Many Founding Fathers owned slaves and Lincoln’s views, especially with a contemporary lens, puts him a few clicks behind them on the morality ladder. And I suspect, based on what I’ve read, there are many people nowadays who are very Lincolnesque.
In this country, we WORK on our imperfections. The world (and the left in the US) sees that work, and weaponizes it as mental trap against us. Men of good standing and intellectual rigor laugh in the face of this onslaught. Weaker men succumb.
This distinctly American virtue was encapsulated perfectly in 2020 by Condoleezza Rice - not a favorite around here - who schooled a loser at CBS carrying globalist water on this topic, effectively saying the George Floyd-fueled riots are indicative of American subhumanism :
Well, I’ve always thought that America’s greatest strength is that we are a country where you can come from humble circumstances and do great things, and where, despite our painful history, we’ve worked harder and harder every day, brick by brick, to build a more perfect union for all of us. And I would say to those, particularly in places like China and Russia and Iran, who may want to use this for propaganda, let’s not be absurd.
This is not Tiananmen Square where you’ve mowed down people who disagreed with the government. This is not the invasion of Crimea where you took land from your neighbor. This is not the Green Revolution in Iran where you killed people wantonly because they wouldn’t agree with the theocratic government.
Rice continued, “And I would even say to our friends abroad, in places like Europe, where I’m seeing demonstrations in support of what is happening here, thank you for your support, but please look in the mirror. Please ask yourself, in countries in Europe and countries all across the world, what are you doing about racial and ethnic inequality in your own circumstances? America has gotten better because we have been willing to confront our problems. And we’re going to confront our problems again. We’re confronting them now.
“But I really don’t need to be lectured by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping about peaceful protest when they have themselves used their own force just because people wanted to criticize the government. That is not what is happening here,” she added.
If Moses was born in Exodus, how did he author Genesis?
Put the bong down and step away from the computer, or place the required /s tag.
I’ve always wondered about how much Torah is Moses. There is undoubtedly a religious answer, and then a different anthropological answer. I have some science and some faith in me, and I’m not concerned that the answers will differ. But like you, I’m curious.
I think I’ll go ask AI.
I think I’ll go ask AI.
= = =
Oh, sorry, I thought you were going to ask AL. i.e., Al Gore.
Lincoln was a calculating, railroad lawyer.
He publicly stated that he wanted to ship all Negroes out of the U.S. after the war.
That’s an inconvenient for his worshipers.
...I recommend the adoption of the following resolution and articles amendatory to the Constitution of the United States:
``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both houses concurring,) That the following articles be proposed to the legislatures (or conventions) of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles when ratified by three-fourths of the said legislatures (or conventions) to be valid as part or parts of the said Constitution, viz:
``Article ---.
``Every State, wherein slavery now exists, which shall abolish the same therein, at any time, or times, before the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand and nine hundred [January 1, 1900], shall receive compensation from the United States as follows, to wit:
``The President of the United States shall deliver to every such State, bonds of the United States, bearing interest at the rate of --- per cent, per annum, to an amount equal to the aggregate sum of for each slave shown to have been therein, by the eig[h]th census of the United States, said bonds to be delivered to such State by instalments, or in one parcel, at the completion of the abolishment, accordingly as the same shall have been gradual, or at one time, within such State; and interest shall begin to run upon any such bond, only from the proper time of its delivery as aforesaid. Any State having received bonds as aforesaid, and afterwards reintroducing or tolerating slavery therein, shall refund to the United States the bonds so received, or the value thereof, and all interest paid thereon.
``Article ---.
``All slaves who shall have enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of the war, at any time before the end of the rebellion, shall be forever free; but all owners of such, who shall not have been disloyal, shall be compensated for them, at the same rates as is provided for States adopting abolishment of slavery, but in such way, that no slave shall be twice accounted for.
``Article ---.
``Congress may appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons, with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States.''
I beg indulgence to discuss these proposed articles at some length...
ChatGPT:
In religious Judaism
Within traditional Judaism, the consensus is clear and longstanding:
The Torah (Pentateuch)—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy—was dictated by God to Moses.
This is often called “Torah min haShamayim” (“Torah from Heaven”).
Moses is understood to have written the text down during the Israelites’ wilderness period, with the possible exception of the final verses describing his death (traditionally attributed either to Moses prophetically or to Joshua).
This view is affirmed in classical rabbinic sources like the Talmud and later authorities such as Maimonides, who lists Mosaic authorship as a core principle of faith.
That said, within more modern Jewish denominations:
Orthodox Judaism maintains this traditional view.
Conservative and Reform Judaism may accept or integrate academic scholarship to varying degrees, sometimes seeing the Torah as divinely inspired but not strictly dictated word-for-word.
📚 In academic / anthropological / textual scholarship
Among historians, biblical scholars, and linguists, the consensus is very different:
The Torah is seen as a composite work, written and edited over several centuries (roughly 10th–5th centuries BCE).
The dominant model has long been the Documentary Hypothesis, which proposes multiple underlying sources:
J (Yahwist) – vivid, narrative style, uses the name YHWH early
E (Elohist) – prefers “Elohim” for God
P (Priestly) – ritual laws, genealogies
D (Deuteronomist) – largely associated with Deuteronomy
These sources were later edited together by redactors into the form we have today.
Why scholars think this:
They point to patterns like:
Duplicate stories (e.g., two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2)
Shifts in language and style
Different theological emphases
Anachronisms (references that fit later historical contexts)
More recent scholarship sometimes modifies or critiques the classic Documentary Hypothesis, but the broad consensus remains:
➡️ The Torah is not the work of a single author, but a layered text reflecting evolving traditions in ancient Israel.
⚖️ Bottom line
Religious Judaism (especially Orthodox): One author → God through Moses
Modern scholarship: Many authors/editors over centuries
These aren’t just different answers—they come from fundamentally different assumptions about revelation, history, and how texts should be analyzed.
Then I read 19th century abolitionist Pastor Theodore Dwight Weld's book Bible Against Slavery. Like some have posted already on this thread, Weld pointed out the details of slavery in the Bible and it's much more like we'd call "indebted servitude" than the chattel slavery we had here. In the Bible the slaves had some rights, they had the year of jubilee (even part of the price of the slave), and if they went though the proselyte process (to become a Jew) they would attend synagogue with their masters. Contrast that with chattel slavery here where slaves had no rights, no year of jubilee, and often the slaves weren't allowed to attend church. And other differences.
Pastor Weld pointed out the most glaring difference: here there was the constant pro-slavery mantra "It's not a person. It's property". Weld said that the complete dehumanizing of a person gives you fake license to do what you want to him. I see today the same thing in the constant mantra "It's not a person. It's just a clump of cells."
The 1st and 2nd great awakenings took us out of the first sexual revolution, gave us an understanding of rights coming from God not man, and abolished slavery. I fully expect the 4th great awakening, which I believe started a few years ago, to get us back to God, stop the dehumanization of babies, and get us out of the current sexual revolution.
“You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”
-- Abraham Lincoln
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”
-- Abraham Lincoln
“I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”
-- Abraham Lincoln
“…I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
-- Abraham Lincoln
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”
-- Abraham Lincoln
The NEA is disgusted with you for pointing out Ol’Abe’s actual quotes.
- Paul's letter to Philemon 1:15-16
But as with some of our founders (including Washington and Franklin) Lincoln's views about GOD and consequently about slavery, racism, and war -- evolved. And some still evolving...
He also had massive personal tragedies contributing to his frame of mind...Namely, the deaths of his sons Eddie (age 3) and Willie (age 11.) Willie's had the biggest impact on him. On one hand: it led to deep struggles with faith, on the other it led to clarity and deeper humanity.
Lincoln had meetings with abolitionists, including regular visits from (Northern) pastors, and the likes of Frederick Douglass. So those interactions and conversations shaped him too.
You can trace the unfolding of his thinking through the timeline of his speeches...
In Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural, he wrote:
If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?
To state that the Civil War -- over 700,000 dead -- was God's judgment on our nation for the sin of slavery...is really quite extraordinary. It's not intuitive, it was a conclusion that was prayerfully reached.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.