Slavery in America was supported by most christians. In fact the slavery abolishment movement here in the US was an offspring of the womens sufferage movement that was started by atheist(Matilda Joshlyn Gage) and agnostic(Susan B Anthony) women who were influenced by the Native Americans who were matriarchal and detested slavery.

A lot of christians make the claim that it was christian teaching that stopped slavery. It never did, not in the Roman impire nor America.

Re the all-important issue of the demise of W. European slavery:

1. Many people in the ancient world were critical of the institution. But while some called for better treatment of slaves and others freed their own in a display of personal magnanimity, no one, as far as I'm aware, called for its outright abolition. Even rebellious slaves hoped to become slaveowners themselves one day, much like a disgruntled worker today who dreams of quitting and starting his own business and hiring employees of his own. Paul's call for slaves to follow Christ and, in the process, remain loyal to their masters was perfectly in keeping with progressive attitudes of the day.

2. Slavery did not end in the west with the fall of Rome. It was a prominent feature of the VIsigothic regime in Spain in the 7th and 8th century and lingered on among the Franks until the 10th and in England until the Norman Conquest. What killed slavery was the rise of feudalism with its combination of free cities and peasant/serf labor in the countryside. There was simply no room for slavery under the new system.

3. This is why slavery arose so "naturally" in the New World after 1492. Since it had died out in Western Europe without ever being formally abolished, the legal atittudes that had permitted in the first millennium were merely in abeyance, waiting for the right circumstances to be reactivated.

4. While Christianity was not anti-slavery per se, it was a major factor in the moral revolution that contributed to its demise in the 10th century and, I might add, in the 19th as well.

5. Nothing remotely similar happened under Islam, or Judaism for that matter. The Muslims held slaves and traded them much like the ancient Romans. The only difference is that while the Romans used them for production, the Muslims employed them mainly as concubines and household servants, i.e. for purposes of luxury consumptioon, and as troops, e.g. the Mamluks in Egypt.

Pierre Bonnassie's "From Slavery to Feudalism in South-Western Europe" is THE book on this subject, while Perry Anderson's "Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism" is also very good.

thanks, that's interesting, but doesn't point 3 undercut points 4 and 5. If European feudalism is the answer, which sounds right, and if slavery resumed in the Christian Americas, why does Christianity deserve any credit at all?

Dinner companion

I don't know as much about the fall of slavery in Rome, but I do know my American history. Especially the history of the women's sufferage movement and its offspring, the slavery abolishment movement.

The christians didn't just jump on board. As a matter of fact they fought tooth and nail to keep their slaves and used many quotes from the NT bible to justify their stance. It wasn't until the both movements were in full swing and gaining support before some christian sects began to work with and support them. The Quakers being the first. And for the record it was Atheists, agnostics and deists that began the movements.

say no to christ,
Actually the Quakers, due to the Testament of Equality, were supporters of women's equality and opponents of slavery beginning with their founding in the 17th century. Abolitionism as a movement had its roots in the 18th century Enlightenment and wasn't in "full swing" until the 19th. Modern feminism as a philosophy also traces its roots to the 18th century Englightenment. Anti-slavery and pro-woman attitudes amongst the Quakers PRECEDE the births of both Gage and Anthony and the period during which both abolitionism and feminism were "in full swing and gaining support".

Also, Native Americans as a coherent, consistent cultural group do not exist. Some tribes were definitely anti-slavery. Others held slaves BEFORE the European invasion of the New World. Tribes were often matrilineal and matrilocal but I know of no tribe that was actually matriarchal. The attitudes of some tribes would be considered enlightened by our standards in many ways. Others supported ideas/practices that would make most of us violently ill.

Also, why are we discussing Christianity as if its an unchanging monolith? Different sects/movements within Christianity at different points in its history have led to various interpretations of scripture. Different ethnic groups, nations, etc. have interpreted Christianity differently based on pre-existing cultural attitudes. Thus, there are many Christianities. Each has had its own influence on the slavery question and the rights of women.

more from dinner companion:

What does "credit" mean, mitch? Christianity was part of a complicated historical process in which lots of bad stuff occurred as well as lots of good. I'm not arguing that Christianity is "good," merely that it contributed to a unique social dynamic that emerged after the fall of the Western empire.

Does Charlemagne deserve "credit" for extending the Frankish empire? Do the Umayyads deserve "credit" for fostering international trade? History is never so simple-minded.

But our interesting debate over dinner seemed to turn on whether certain political advances you associated with Christianity -- increasing concern for the poor, end of slavery in Europe -- might make up for undeniable intolerance among many Christian leaders and thinkers for dissent, reason and philosophy and the many centuries of scientific and philosophic regression that followed (in which, I will concede, other factors besides Christianity were involved). Sounds as if the Christian role in the (slow) end of slavery was minor, at best.

from the dinner companion:

How could it be minor if the church played such an immense role in shaping the society in which it was discontinued?

could be minor if church's position was that slaves should make the best of their lots since we are all slaves of our Lord and, using your own points, if Christian society was sufficiently open to slavery that it could reappear in a highly Christian area more than a thousand years after the triumph of Christianity.

here's what you, dinner companion, wrote above:

2. Slavery did not end in the west with the fall of Rome. It was a prominent feature of the VIsigothic regime in Spain in the 7th and 8th century and lingered on among the Franks until the 10th and in England until the Norman Conquest. What killed slavery was the rise of feudalism with its combination of free cities and peasant/serf labor in the countryside. There was simply no room for slavery under the new system.

3. This is why slavery arose so "naturally" in the New World after 1492. Since it had died out in Western Europe without ever being formally abolished, the legal atittudes that had permitted in the first millennium were merely in abeyance, waiting for the right circumstances to be reactivated.

Would that we all had such interesting dinners...

If you don't mind the intrusion of a non-dinner companion: I'm curious what (if anything) might happen if this discussion shifts perspective slightly to contemplate how christian doctrine conceptualizes the ontological status of freedom (and which it seems like Mitch is hinting at in his last comment?) could this help demystify christianity's apparently unchanging metaphysical investment in slavery despite its varying historical alignments politically, economically, etc.?