What Was Christianity’s Role in American History? A Focus on Slavery (Part 1)

Debating if America is a Christian Nation often evades a more interesting question

Last week, the debate over the relationship between America's founding and Christianity resurfaced, particularly in a Jubilee discussion featuring Sam Seder and a group of conservative panelists. One of the key claims made was that America was founded on Christian values. While this is an interesting and important question, I want to set it aside in favor of a more enlightening one—what role did Christianity play in American history? This question has many dimensions, but this piece will focus narrowly on Christianity’s role in American slavery.

To answer historical questions properly, one must adopt a reality-based methodology that evaluates both what historical actors said and what they did. To seriously understand history—the record of human action—and more generally, people, one must analyze both their thought and their action. The fundamental premise here is that ideas drive history, shaping the actions of individuals and, by extension, the movements and institutions they create. Understanding historical change and causality requires applying this principle methodically.

Many discussions about America’s founding get stuck in what I call the “because they said so” view—pointing to statements made by the Founding Fathers that reference Christianity or biblical doctrine and concluding that America was therefore founded on Christian values. This is a flawed method. It is not enough to look at what people said or even thought; we must examine what they did over a significant period to make accurate generalizations about historical trends. This is especially important in the case of America, as it represents such an unprecedented and radical shift in human history.

Rather than debating whether America was founded on Christianity, I propose a more fundamental question: What role did Christianity actually play in shaping American history? This reframing allows for a deeper exploration of Christianity's real influence on various aspects of society, such as gender relations, family structures, economics, and law. In this piece, I focus specifically on Christianity’s role in defending the institution of slavery.

A proper historical method also requires contrast: What was the role of Christianity in slavery before America’s founding? And did that role change after 1776? Examining this contrast allows us to see whether Christianity was a foundational, transformative force in America or whether other, more dominant ideas were at play in shaping the nation’s trajectory.

Christianity and Slavery in the Antebellum South

Historical evidence reveals that Christianity and slavery were deeply intertwined in the South and that Southern intellectuals, rather than embracing the ideals of the American Enlightenment, gradually rejected them in order to justify slavery. Prominent Southern ministers and theologians explicitly defended slavery on Christian grounds. Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, for example, asserted (correctly) that slavery was not condemned by Jesus Christ, stating:

"Jesus Christ recognized this (i.e., slavery) institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties. ... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction."

Similarly, Reverend Richard Furman insisted that slavery was divinely sanctioned and morally justified:

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established by the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example. ... If the holding of slaves is lawful, or according to the Scriptures; then this Scriptural rule can be considered as requiring no more of the master, in respect of justice ... while the relationship between master and servant should still be continued."

These statements reflect a broader pattern in which Southern religious leaders rejected Enlightenment principles and instead leaned on biblical literalism to sustain the institution of slavery.

This defense of slavery was not merely about religious doctrine; it was a broader ideological effort to justify a hierarchical social order. George Fitzhugh argued that slavery was not only natural but essential to maintaining civilization, stating:

"If we prove that domestic slavery is, in the general, a natural and necessary institution, we remove the greatest stumbling block to belief in the Bible."

Reverend James Warley Miles, delivering a sermon in 1863, reinforced the belief that racial hierarchy was divinely ordained:

"We have a great lesson to teach the world with respect to the relation of races: that certain races are permanently inferior in their capacities to others, and that the African who is entrusted to our care can only reach the amount of civilization and development of which he is capable—in the position in which God has placed him among us (i.e., that of a slave)."

These views illustrate how Southern religious and intellectual leaders sought to reconcile their commitment to Christianity with the continuation of slavery, portraying it as a divinely mandated moral institution that upheld social stability.

Enlightenment Ideals and Abolitionist Arguments

Abolitionists were undoubtedly influenced by Enlightenment ideals of reason, individualism, and natural rights. These principles provided a coherent and consistent moral foundation for opposing slavery—one that Christianity, as a faith-based system, struggled to maintain consistently. While many abolitionists framed their arguments in religious terms, it was ultimately Enlightenment philosophy that provided the intellectual force behind their opposition to slavery.

Notably, what abolitionists were doing was going against thousands of years of Christian doctrine—doctrine that had sanctioned slavery throughout history. The very existence of an abolitionist movement only emerged after thousands of years of Christianity, and it did so precisely because of the influence of Enlightenment philosophy. This underscores an important historical observation: the impact of the Enlightenment on Christianity was profound, but the opposite cannot be maintained. Christianity did not generate the abolitionist movement on its own; rather, it was the secular idea of natural rights that provided the intellectual consistency needed to challenge slavery in a meaningful way.

It is important to note a meaningful distinction that characterizes America's post-Enlightenment culture. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, many believed these rights ultimately came from God, as any medieval Christian would agree, especially when talking about the “divine right of kings.” But what made post-Enlightenment thinkers different is that they thought these rights were principles arrived at through reason when observing man’s nature, which was created by God. Although to some this may seem a trivial point, serious historical analysis has to be attuned to the significant difference this makes, which helps explain the unprecedented progress in the century following the American Revolution. As Frederick Douglass, one of the most famous abolitionists, put it:

"[There is] no governmental authority to pass laws, nor to compel obedience to any laws, against the natural rights and happiness of man."

These natural rights, Douglass, like most advocates of this view, held, were based on human beings' capacity to reason, to understand morality, and to make their own choices.

Christianity's Internal Consistency: The Southern Argument Against Abolition

While modern perspectives often try to reconcile Christianity with abolitionism, 19th-century Southern theologians and intellectuals had a far more biblically consistent argument. Christianity, being a system of faith rather than reason, could be used to justify anything—including slavery. Southern Christians rightly pointed out that the Bible explicitly sanctioned slavery and that the apostles never sought to abolish it. As Leonard Bacon acknowledged:

"The evidence that there were both slaves and masters of slaves in churches founded and directed by the apostles, cannot be got rid of without resorting to methods of interpretation that will get rid of everything."

This was the crux of the Southern pro-slavery argument: if Christianity was to be taken seriously as a moral authority, then slavery could not simply be declared immoral without undermining the very foundation of Christian doctrine.