Evaluate the development of biblical defenses of slavery among southern evangelicals. How did theological arguments evolve to justify slaveholding as a Christian duty?

Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Date: August 2025

Introduction

The development of biblical defenses of slavery among Southern evangelicals represents one of the most troubling chapters in American religious history, demonstrating how theological arguments can be manipulated to justify profound moral contradictions. During the antebellum period, Southern evangelical leaders systematically constructed elaborate biblical justifications for slavery, transforming what had initially been viewed as a necessary evil into what they claimed was a divinely ordained institution. This theological evolution did not occur in isolation but rather developed in response to mounting abolitionist pressure, economic interests, and the need to reconcile Christian faith with the brutal realities of human bondage. The process by which Southern evangelicals transformed slavery from a tolerated practice into a supposed Christian duty reveals the complex interplay between religious belief, social pressure, and economic necessity in shaping theological discourse.

The transformation of Southern evangelical attitudes toward slavery occurred gradually over several decades, beginning in the late eighteenth century and reaching its culmination in the 1850s. Initially, many Southern religious leaders expressed ambivalence or even opposition to slavery, viewing it as incompatible with Christian principles of human dignity and equality. However, as economic dependence on slave labor intensified and abolitionist criticism mounted, Southern evangelicals increasingly turned to biblical exegesis to construct defenses of the institution. This theological project required sophisticated hermeneutical strategies that could reconcile the apparent contradictions between Christian teachings about love, justice, and human worth with the harsh realities of chattel slavery.

Early Evangelical Ambivalence Toward Slavery

The initial response of Southern evangelicals to slavery during the late colonial and early national periods was characterized by significant moral ambivalence and theological uncertainty. Many prominent evangelical leaders, influenced by Enlightenment ideals of natural rights and Christian concepts of universal human dignity, expressed serious reservations about the institution of slavery. Methodist founder John Wesley had condemned slavery as “the sum of all villainies,” and early American Methodist leaders initially maintained strong anti-slavery positions (Mathews, 1977). Similarly, Baptist associations in Virginia and other Southern states passed resolutions during the 1780s and 1790s questioning the compatibility of slavery with Christian principles.

This early evangelical critique of slavery drew heavily on New Testament teachings about the equality of all believers in Christ, particularly Paul’s declaration in Galatians 3:28 that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Early evangelical leaders interpreted such passages as evidence of Christianity’s fundamental egalitarian message, which seemed to condemn the artificial distinctions and hierarchies that slavery imposed upon human relationships (Snay, 1993). The emphasis on personal conversion and individual relationship with God that characterized evangelical theology also appeared to conflict with the dehumanizing aspects of slavery that reduced persons to property.

However, even during this period of evangelical anti-slavery sentiment, theological arguments began to emerge that would later provide the foundation for more elaborate biblical defenses of slavery. Some Southern religious leaders distinguished between spiritual equality in Christ and temporal social arrangements, arguing that while all believers were equal in God’s eyes, this spiritual truth did not necessarily require the abolition of existing social hierarchies. This distinction between spiritual and temporal realms would become increasingly important as Southern evangelicals sought to reconcile their religious beliefs with their economic and social interests (Genovese, 1998).

The practical pressures of ministering to slaveholding congregations also contributed to the erosion of early evangelical anti-slavery positions. Methodist and Baptist denominations experienced rapid growth in the South during the early nineteenth century, but this expansion depended heavily on the support of slaveholding families who provided financial resources and social legitimacy. As these denominations became increasingly integrated into Southern society, their leaders faced growing pressure to moderate their opposition to slavery or risk losing influence and membership (Heyrman, 1997).

The Scriptural Foundation of Pro-Slavery Theology

As Southern evangelicals moved away from their initial ambivalence toward slavery, they began constructing increasingly sophisticated biblical justifications for the institution. These theological arguments rested on careful selection and interpretation of specific biblical passages that could be construed as supporting or at least tolerating slavery. The development of this scriptural foundation required extensive hermeneutical work that emphasized certain texts while minimizing or reinterpreting others that appeared to conflict with pro-slavery positions.

The Old Testament provided Southern evangelicals with their most compelling biblical evidence for slavery’s divine sanction. They frequently cited the account of Noah’s curse upon Ham in Genesis 9:20-27, interpreting this passage as establishing perpetual servitude for Ham’s descendants, whom they identified with African peoples. This interpretation, known as the “Curse of Ham” or “Curse of Canaan,” became a cornerstone of biblical defenses of slavery, despite its questionable exegetical foundation and racist assumptions (Haynes, 2002). Pro-slavery theologians argued that Noah’s curse represented divine judgment that could not be overturned by human action, making slavery not merely permissible but divinely ordained.

Additionally, Southern evangelical scholars pointed to various Old Testament regulations concerning slavery found in books such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They argued that God’s provision of detailed laws governing the treatment of slaves demonstrated divine approval of the institution itself. Passages such as Leviticus 25:44-46, which permitted the Israelites to purchase slaves from surrounding nations and pass them to their children as inheritances, were interpreted as establishing permanent chattel slavery as consistent with divine will (Jenkins, 1935). These arguments conveniently ignored the significant differences between ancient Near Eastern slavery practices and the racially-based chattel slavery of the American South.

The New Testament provided additional ammunition for pro-slavery arguments, particularly through the writings of the Apostle Paul. Southern evangelicals frequently cited passages such as Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-24, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2, in which Paul instructed slaves to obey their masters faithfully. They interpreted these passages as divine endorsement of slavery and evidence that early Christianity had accepted and sanctioned the institution. The letter to Philemon, in which Paul returned the runaway slave Onesimus to his master, was similarly cited as proof that even the apostles supported the property rights of slaveholders (Stringfellow, 1856).

Pro-slavery theologians also emphasized Jesus’s apparent silence on the slavery question, arguing that if the institution were inherently sinful, Christ would have explicitly condemned it during his earthly ministry. They contended that Jesus’s focus on spiritual rather than social transformation indicated divine approval of existing social arrangements, including slavery. This argument from silence became particularly important as it allowed Southern evangelicals to claim that abolitionists were adding to Christian teaching by condemning an institution that Christ himself had not explicitly rejected (Daly, 2002).

The Evolution of Positive Good Theology

The most significant development in Southern evangelical thinking about slavery was the emergence of “positive good” theology, which transformed slavery from a defended necessity into a claimed divine blessing. This theological evolution represented a dramatic departure from earlier positions that had viewed slavery as, at best, a regrettable but temporarily necessary institution. Instead, positive good theologians argued that slavery was inherently beneficial to both enslaved persons and society as a whole, serving as an instrument of divine providence for the Christianization and civilization of African peoples.

The positive good argument drew heavily on paternalistic assumptions about racial hierarchy and Christian responsibility. Southern evangelical leaders argued that Africans, whom they characterized as inherently inferior and incapable of self-governance, benefited from the protective care and Christian instruction that slavery provided. They contended that removing Africans from their “heathen” homeland and placing them under Christian masters represented a form of divine mercy that offered opportunities for salvation and civilization that would otherwise be unavailable (Palmer, 1856). This argument conveniently ignored both the violent nature of the slave trade and the limited Christian instruction that most enslaved persons actually received.

Prominent Southern evangelical leaders such as James Henley Thornwell and Robert Lewis Dabney developed sophisticated theological frameworks that presented slavery as part of God’s providential plan for human history. Thornwell argued that slavery served as a school for Christian discipleship, teaching both masters and slaves important lessons about authority, submission, and mutual responsibility. He contended that the master-slave relationship, properly conducted according to Christian principles, exemplified the hierarchical nature of all legitimate authority relationships, including those between God and humanity (Thornwell, 1860).

The positive good theology also incorporated broader arguments about social order and divine providence. Southern evangelical theologians argued that slavery contributed to social stability by preventing the class conflicts that plagued free labor societies. They contended that the paternalistic relationship between masters and slaves created bonds of mutual affection and responsibility that were superior to the purely contractual relationships between employers and workers in industrial societies. This argument portrayed slavery as a more Christian alternative to wage labor, which they characterized as exploitative and dehumanizing (Fitzhugh, 1857).

Economic arguments became increasingly integrated with theological justifications as Southern evangelicals sought to defend their region’s economic interests. They argued that cotton production, dependent on slave labor, served divine purposes by providing raw materials for industrial development and international commerce. Some theologians went so far as to suggest that disrupting the slave-based economy would interfere with God’s plan for global evangelization, which they claimed depended on the wealth generated by Southern agriculture (Faust, 1981).

Denominational Developments and Schisms

The evolution of biblical defenses of slavery profoundly affected the organizational structure of American evangelical denominations, ultimately leading to schisms that divided national churches along sectional lines. These denominational splits reflected the irreconcilable differences that had developed between Northern and Southern evangelicals regarding the compatibility of slavery with Christian faith. The process of denominational division also accelerated the development of distinctively Southern theological positions, as separated denominations felt less constrained by the need to accommodate diverse regional perspectives.

The Methodist Episcopal Church experienced the first major schism over slavery in 1844, when the General Conference censured Bishop James Osgood Andrew for owning slaves through marriage. Southern Methodists, led by delegates who had developed increasingly sophisticated biblical defenses of slavery, refused to accept this action and withdrew to form the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The Southern Methodist denomination quickly became a stronghold of pro-slavery theology, with leaders such as William A. smith and H.N. McTyeire developing elaborate scriptural justifications for the institution (Norwood, 1974).

The Baptist denomination experienced similar divisions, with Southern Baptist churches withdrawing from national mission societies in 1845 to form the Southern Baptist Convention. This separation was precipitated by Northern Baptists’ refusal to appoint slaveholding missionaries, a policy that Southern Baptists interpreted as an attack on their religious convictions regarding slavery. The newly formed Southern Baptist Convention became perhaps the most theologically committed defender of slavery among evangelical denominations, producing extensive literature that portrayed slaveholding as consistent with Christian discipleship (Baker, 1974).

Presbyterian churches also experienced significant tensions over slavery, though their divisions were complicated by other theological disputes. The Old School Presbyterian Church, which had stronger Southern representation and more conservative theological positions, generally defended slavery as biblically permissible, while New School Presbyterians were more likely to oppose the institution. The 1861 division of the Old School Presbyterian Church resulted in the formation of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America, which explicitly affirmed slavery as divinely sanctioned (Thompson, 1963).

These denominational schisms had profound implications for the development of pro-slavery theology. Separated from Northern influences and criticism, Southern denominations felt free to elaborate increasingly extreme biblical defenses of slavery. Denominational publications, seminaries, and conferences became vehicles for disseminating pro-slavery theological arguments and training ministers to defend the institution from the pulpit. The institutional support provided by separated denominations gave pro-slavery theology a level of official sanction and intellectual respectability that it might not have achieved otherwise.

The Role of Southern Seminaries and Theologians

Southern theological seminaries played a crucial role in developing and disseminating biblical defenses of slavery, serving as intellectual centers where sophisticated pro-slavery arguments were crafted and refined. These institutions provided the scholarly apparatus necessary to give theological respectability to pro-slavery positions, producing learned treatises, biblical commentaries, and systematic theologies that supported slaveholding as consistent with Christian faith. The academic prestige of these seminaries lent authority to pro-slavery arguments and helped train generations of ministers who would propagate these views from Southern pulpits.

Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, founded in 1807, became perhaps the most influential center of pro-slavery theological scholarship. Faculty members such as Robert Lewis Dabney and James Henley Thornwell produced extensive writings that defended slavery on biblical grounds and attacked abolitionist interpretations of Scripture. Dabney’s “Defense of Virginia and the South” (1867) and Thornwell’s collected works provided comprehensive theological frameworks that portrayed slavery as consistent with divine revelation and natural law (Johnson, 1998). These scholars employed sophisticated hermeneutical methods and extensive biblical scholarship to support their positions, giving pro-slavery theology an appearance of academic rigor and scholarly legitimacy.

Columbia Theological Seminary in South Carolina, under the leadership of Thornwell and others, similarly became a stronghold of pro-slavery thought. The seminary’s faculty developed distinctive theological positions that emphasized the divine origin of social hierarchies and the Christian duty to maintain established social orders. Their teachings influenced hundreds of Presbyterian ministers who carried these ideas throughout the South, making the seminary a key institutional force in the propagation of pro-slavery theology (Farmer, 1999).

Southern Baptist seminaries, though established later than their Presbyterian counterparts, also contributed significantly to the theological defense of slavery. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, founded in 1859 in Greenville, South Carolina, was explicitly committed to defending Southern social institutions, including slavery. Faculty members such as James Petigru Boyce incorporated pro-slavery arguments into their systematic theologies and trained Baptist ministers to defend the institution from biblical perspectives (Mueller, 2003).

The scholarly output of these institutions extended beyond formal theological treatises to include biblical commentaries, sermonic literature, and popular religious publications that disseminated pro-slavery arguments to broader audiences. Seminary professors regularly contributed to denominational newspapers and magazines, wrote pamphlets defending slavery, and delivered lectures that were widely circulated throughout the South. This extensive publication network ensured that sophisticated theological defenses of slavery reached not only educated clergy but also lay audiences who looked to religious authorities for guidance on moral questions.

The Missionary Argument and Christianization

One of the most psychologically compelling aspects of Southern evangelical defenses of slavery was the missionary argument, which portrayed the institution as a divinely ordained means of bringing African peoples to Christian faith. This theological framework transformed slaveholders from mere economic actors into Christian missionaries, invested with sacred responsibility for the spiritual welfare of their enslaved workers. The missionary argument provided a powerful psychological defense mechanism that allowed slaveholders to view themselves as benevolent Christians rather than oppressive masters, while simultaneously justifying their economic interests in terms of religious duty.

Southern evangelical theologians argued that divine providence had orchestrated the Atlantic slave trade as a means of rescuing Africans from heathenism and exposing them to Christian civilization. They contended that Africans brought to America as slaves were actually recipients of divine mercy, having been removed from societies characterized by paganism, barbarism, and spiritual darkness. This argument conveniently ignored the Christian societies that existed in parts of Africa and portrayed all African cultures as uniformly inferior and godless (Raboteau, 1978).

The missionary argument placed particular emphasis on the supposed benefits that slavery provided to enslaved persons, including exposure to Christian teaching, protection from the harsh realities of freedom, and gradual preparation for eventual civilization. Pro-slavery theologians argued that immediate emancipation would be cruel to enslaved persons who were not yet prepared for the responsibilities of freedom, and that gradual Christian instruction under benevolent masters represented the most compassionate approach to their elevation. This paternalistic reasoning portrayed opposition to slavery as actually harmful to the interests of enslaved persons themselves (Genovese, 1998).

Southern evangelical leaders also developed elaborate theories about the evangelistic potential of Christianized slaves who might eventually return to Africa as missionaries. They argued that slavery served as a training ground where Africans could acquire Christian knowledge and civilized habits that would eventually benefit their homeland. Some theologians suggested that the ultimate purpose of American slavery was to prepare a cadre of Christian missionaries who would carry the gospel back to Africa, making the temporary bondage of some justified by the eternal salvation of many (Sanneh, 1999).

The practical implementation of the missionary argument, however, revealed its fundamental contradictions and limitations. Despite elaborate theological justifications, most slaveholders provided minimal Christian instruction to their enslaved workers, and many actively discouraged slave literacy that would enable independent Bible study. The harsh realities of plantation discipline, family separation, and economic exploitation consistently contradicted claims about benevolent Christian care. Moreover, the independent religious expressions that developed among enslaved persons often challenged pro-slavery theological arguments, as enslaved Christians developed their own interpretations of biblical texts that emphasized themes of liberation and divine justice (Frey & Wood, 1998).

Response to Abolitionist Challenges

The development of increasingly sophisticated biblical defenses of slavery among Southern evangelicals was largely driven by the need to respond to mounting abolitionist challenges that threatened to undermine the moral legitimacy of the institution. Northern abolitionists, many of whom were themselves evangelical Christians, developed powerful scriptural arguments against slavery that emphasized themes of human dignity, divine justice, and Christian love. Southern theologians found themselves compelled to engage these arguments directly, leading to increasingly elaborate hermeneutical strategies designed to counter abolitionist biblical interpretation.

Abolitionist arguments posed particular challenges because they often employed the same evangelical theological frameworks and biblical texts that Southern Christians valued. Abolitionists emphasized passages such as the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12), the commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:31), and Paul’s declaration of universal equality in Christ (Galatians 3:28). They argued that these fundamental Christian principles made slavery inherently incompatible with genuine Christian faith, regardless of specific regulations that might seem to tolerate the institution in particular historical contexts (Barnes, 1846).

Southern evangelical responses to these challenges required sophisticated hermeneutical strategies that could maintain biblical authority while defending slavery. Pro-slavery theologians developed elaborate theories of biblical interpretation that distinguished between universal moral principles and culturally specific regulations, arguing that New Testament instructions to slaves represented accommodations to existing social conditions rather than endorsements of slavery itself. However, they inconsistently applied this hermeneutical principle, treating passages that could support slavery as universal while characterizing passages that challenged the institution as culturally limited (Tise, 1987).

The debate over biblical interpretation became increasingly technical and scholarly, with both sides producing learned commentaries, exegetical studies, and theological treatises. Southern evangelicals such as Thornwell and Dabney engaged in detailed textual analysis, examining Greek and Hebrew terms, historical contexts, and comparative ancient practices. They argued that careful scholarly study of Scripture supported rather than challenged slavery, portraying abolitionist interpretations as based on sentimental emotion rather than rigorous biblical scholarship (McKivigan & Snay, 1998).

Southern theologians also attacked the theological credentials and interpretive methods of abolitionist critics, arguing that their opposition to slavery stemmed from infidelity to biblical authority rather than genuine Christian conviction. They contended that abolitionists had been corrupted by secular Enlightenment philosophy and radical political ideas that led them to reject clear biblical teaching in favor of human reasoning. This strategy allowed pro-slavery advocates to present themselves as defenders of orthodox Christianity against dangerous theological innovations (Loveland, 1996).

The Ultimate Failure and Legacy

Despite the sophisticated theological apparatus that Southern evangelicals constructed to defend slavery, their biblical arguments ultimately proved unsustainable in the face of moral reality and changing social conditions. The contradictions between Christian teachings about love, justice, and human dignity and the brutal realities of chattel slavery became increasingly difficult to reconcile, even through elaborate hermeneutical strategies. The Civil War and emancipation effectively ended the practical relevance of pro-slavery theology, though its intellectual and cultural legacy persisted in various forms well into the twentieth century.

The collapse of biblical defenses of slavery revealed the fundamental weakness of theological arguments that subordinated clear moral principles to economic and social interests. The elaborate scriptural justifications that Southern evangelicals had developed proved to be rationalizations rather than genuine theological insights, demonstrating how religious authority could be manipulated to serve particular group interests. The failure of pro-slavery theology provided important lessons about the dangers of allowing cultural context to override fundamental Christian commitments to human dignity and justice (Noll, 2006).

The legacy of pro-slavery biblical interpretation continued to influence Southern evangelical thought long after emancipation, contributing to the development of theological justifications for racial segregation and white supremacy. Many of the hermeneutical strategies and theological frameworks that had been developed to defend slavery were adapted to support Jim Crow laws and racial discrimination. The same emphasis on divine providence, social hierarchy, and gradual change that had characterized pro-slavery theology reappeared in twentieth-century arguments against civil rights activism (Harvey, 2016).

The historical experience of biblical defenses of slavery also provided important insights into the relationship between theological interpretation and social context. The Southern evangelical case demonstrated how sincere religious belief could be shaped by cultural pressures and economic interests in ways that produced profound moral blindness. This historical lesson has important implications for contemporary theological reflection, highlighting the need for constant vigilance against the temptation to subordinate clear moral principles to particular social or economic arrangements.

Conclusion

The development of biblical defenses of slavery among Southern evangelicals represents a tragic chapter in American religious history that demonstrates the capacity of theological interpretation to serve oppressive social arrangements. The evolution of Southern evangelical thinking from initial ambivalence toward slavery to elaborate justifications of the institution as a Christian duty reveals the complex interplay between religious belief, economic interest, and social pressure in shaping theological discourse. The sophisticated hermeneutical strategies and scholarly apparatus that Southern theologians developed to defend slavery cannot obscure the fundamental moral failure that their project represented.

The transformation of slavery from a tolerated evil into a claimed divine good required extensive theological work that ultimately corrupted the biblical interpretation and moral reasoning of Southern evangelical leaders. The elaborate scriptural justifications they constructed reveal how religious authority can be manipulated to serve particular group interests, even when those interests conflict with fundamental Christian teachings about human dignity and divine justice. The denominational schisms that resulted from disagreements over slavery demonstrate the profound social and institutional consequences of theological compromise on essential moral questions.

The legacy of pro-slavery biblical interpretation extends far beyond the antebellum period, contributing to patterns of racial oppression and theological rationalization that persisted well into the modern era. The hermeneutical strategies and theological frameworks that Southern evangelicals developed to defend slavery were later adapted to justify segregation and racial discrimination, revealing the lasting influence of corrupted theological reasoning. This historical experience provides important lessons about the dangers of subordinating clear moral principles to cultural context and economic interest.

The ultimate failure of biblical defenses of slavery demonstrates the inherent unsustainability of theological arguments that contradict fundamental Christian commitments to human dignity, justice, and love. Despite the scholarly sophistication and institutional support that characterized pro-slavery theology, its basic premises could not withstand the moral reality of chattel slavery’s brutality and dehumanization. The collapse of these theological defenses with emancipation revealed their character as rationalizations rather than genuine religious insights.

Contemporary Christians and scholars can learn important lessons from this historical experience about the relationship between theological interpretation and social context. The Southern evangelical case illustrates the need for constant vigilance against the temptation to make religious belief serve particular social arrangements rather than challenging unjust structures in light of divine truth. The development of biblical defenses of slavery serves as a cautionary tale about how sincere religious conviction can be corrupted by cultural pressure and economic interest, leading to profound moral blindness and theological distortion.

References

Baker, R. A. (1974). Relations Between Northern and Southern Baptists. Arno Press.

Barnes, A. (1846). An Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery. Perkins & Purves.

Daly, J. P. (2002). When Slavery Was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War. University Press of Kentucky.

Farmer, J. S. (1999). The Metaphysical Confederacy: James Henley Thornwell and the Synthesis of Southern Values. Mercer University Press.

Faust, D. G. (1981). A Sacred Circle: The Dilemma of the Intellectual in the Old South. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fitzhugh, G. (1857). Cannibals All! Or, Slaves Without Masters. A. Morris.

Frey, S. R., & Wood, B. (1998). Come Shouting to Zion: African American Protestantism in the American South and British Caribbean to 1830. University of North Carolina Press.

Genovese, E. D. (1998). A Consuming Fire: The Fall of the Confederacy in the Mind of the White Christian South. University of Georgia Press.

Harvey, P. (2016). Christianity and Race in the American South: A History. University of Chicago Press.

Haynes, S. R. (2002). Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery. Oxford University Press.

Heyrman, C. L. (1997). Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt. University of North Carolina Press.

Jenkins, W. S. (1935). Pro-Slavery Thought in the Old South. University of North Carolina Press.

Johnson, T. C. (1998). Robert Lewis Dabney: Southern Presbyterian Apologist. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing.

Loveland, A. C. (1996). Southern Evangelicals and the Social Order, 1800-1860. Louisiana State University Press.

Mathews, D. G. (1977). Religion in the Old South. University of Chicago Press.

McKivigan, J. R., & Snay, M. (Eds.). (1998). Religion and the Antebellum Debate over Slavery. University of Georgia Press.

Mueller, W. A. (2003). A History of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Broadman Press.

Noll, M. A. (2006). The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. University of North Carolina Press.

Norwood, F. A. (1974). The Story of American Methodism. Abingdon Press.

Palmer, B. M. (1856). The South: Her Peril and Her Duty. True Witness and Sentinel.

Raboteau, A. J. (1978). Slave Religion: The “Invisible Institution” in the Antebellum South. Oxford University Press.

Sanneh, L. (1999). Abolitionists Abroad: American Blacks and the Making of Modern West Africa. Harvard University Press.

Snay, M. (1993). Gospel of Disunion: Religion and Separatism in the Antebellum South. Cambridge University Press.

Stringfellow, T. (1856). Scriptural and Statistical Views in Favor of Slavery. J. W. Randolph.

Thompson, E. T. (1963). Presbyterians in the South. John Knox Press.

Thornwell, J. H. (1860). The Rights and the Duties of Masters. Steam Power Press.

Tise, L. E. (1987). Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavery in America, 1701-1840. University of Georgia Press.