In this work, Jordan Watkins shows that antebellum arguments over slavery produced a new historical consciousness. In the decades leading to the Civil War, American thinkers paid increasing attention to the status of slavery in the Bible and the US Constitution. As they argued over the meaning of these sacred texts, Americans became more aware of the temporal divide between their present and the biblical and Revolutionary pasts. This growing awareness of historical distance produced a new interpretive challenge, as well as new readings of Christian scripture and the Constitution. In other words, Watkins argues, the sensibilities that shape how we read and appropriate sacred texts today—particularly, our awareness of historical distance and contingency—are rooted in the antebellum slavery debates. Watkins’s argument unfolds chronologically. In the first three chapters, he focuses on biblical hermeneutics. As German biblical criticism made its way across the Atlantic, American scholars began to emphasize the importance of historical differences in properly interpreting scripture. Chapter 1 describes how Charles Hodge, Moses Stuart, Andrews Norton, and others used historical reasoning and contextual interpretation. Across the spectrum from Calvinist to Unitarian there was a “growing awareness of historical distance from biblical times” (p. 30). Chapter 2 looks at Transcendentalist thinkers, especially Ralph Waldo Emerson and Theodore Parker, who concluded that scripture was transient and that only truths grounded in conscience could dismantle slavery. Chapter 3 turns to the debate over slavery in scripture: proslavery interpretations such as Richard Fuller’s, and antislavery readings by Francis Wayland, William Ellery Channing, Albert Barnes, and more. By the 1830s and 1840s, Watkins shows, antislavery interpreters began using the words “context, circumstance, and accommodation” to uncover the “apostolic expectation” that slavery would one day end (p. 112).
Read full abstract