I like Rousas Rushdoony’s take on the question - biblically speaking, slavery is a bad thing that should nevertheless be tolerated in certain circumstances as the lesser of two evils.
It should first be pointed out that hereditary chattel slavery - like we had in the Antebellum South - wasn’t biblical slavery. The OT had a number of limitations on slavery that related to Jews. But those limitations should apply to any Christian by extension. They included a seven year term and the care for elderly slaves. Biblical slavery is more like a definite-term labor contract that could be specifically enforced.
None of those protections applied to negro slavery in the old South, which was more like the institution that St. Paul knew and dealt with in Philemon. Even that unbiblical, chattel slavery was to be tolerated, while understanding that the institution was inconsistent with the dignity of Christians who are saved before God.
So, I’m a Catholic, but I find Rushdoony’s take on the issue quite convincing. Rushdoony compares it to polygyny - it’s a bad thing overall, but it should be tolerated under certain conditions as the lesser of two evils.
I’d also like to say that we have, technically speaking, slavery in the United States. After all, we can draft young men and women to serve in the military. That’s involuntary servitude by definition. We also have prisons. Again, involuntary servitude. Both of these forms of slavery are allowed and I think most would agree that they’re necessary under certain circumstances. The main thing for our Constitution is that due process be followed. Neither form is anything like unlimited chattel slavery as we had in the South for that reason. It’s subject to limitations and applies only to the state. If it is, then liberty can be taken by the state but not by any other.
But there is also another kind of slavery that is chattel slavery that we have with us today. Unbiblical, chattel slavery is when one person (or class of persons) is given over to another person (or class of persons) for the unlimited use by that other person. Abortion on demand fits this definition to a “tee”. With abortion on demand, one class of human being (unborn babies) are given over to another class of persons (pregnant women), who may do with them as they please, including killing them. That is chattel slavery at its worst.
In sum, some limited forms of involuntary servitude are biblically allowed. Chattel slavery is not biblical, although St. Paul tolerated it (although he certainly would have condemned the murder of a slave by a master). Abortion on demand is the worst form of chattel slavery, since it entails by definition the murder of the slave by the master.
Excellent post, mostly correct, I would like to offer a minor point of correction.
Lets review the 13th, (section 1 only - section 2 says Congress can enforce section 1):
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Pay close attention to the “involuntary servitude”. This was added for the reason of allowing VOLUNTARY service. Had it not been included, the 13th could have been interpreted to require payment for all services rendered, effectively killing off any form of community or religious service.
However, for the discussion of your points, it opens an area that has not yet been discussed. What is the law if someone WANTS to be a slave? Rare, yes, unheard of... no.
So minor nit is that in addition to the government still being permitted to be a slave owner / indentured servant / prisoner ... there exists the possibility of VOLUNTARY slavery.
By that tortured logic, The Old testament talks about Saul being told by God (thru prophet Samuel)to kill all the Philistine babies and women. Does that mean its also ok to kill babies,,, sometimes?