at the weekend, american history tv is featuring topeka, kansas. our city staff recently traveled there to learn about its rich history. learn more about topeka and other stops on our tour at c-span.org/citiestour. you are watching american history tv all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3. you can watch the classes every saturday evening here at 8:00 eastern. next, mercer university professor douglas thompson talks about religion and its impact on the relationship between slaves and their owners during the antebellum period. he cites nat turner's 1831 slave rebellion and frederick douglass' 1845 memoir as examples of how whites and blacks interpreted biblical passages on slavery. this class is about an hour.

professor thompson: ok, remember how we were talking about proslavery views. but especially talking about how they use the bible. picking up on the last one as a way to talk about something that is going to happen in the african-american experience, especially as they read to -- read the bible themselves. the conflated story, the mark of cain, the curse of ham. we did not talk about, because the reader does not pull those text together -- the tower of

babel is often used to talk about what you have different races of people. so, i am adding that one in. it is an example of a way you can understand difference, the different races that exist. this is a whole code for households, women and children but included in that is slaves. included in that, slaves being obedient to their masters. the first pass a job timothy is -- the person -- the first passage of timothy is the same. how to be a good slave. and then there is a code for how to treat slaves. in the argument, if slavery is

being talked about, it is clearly being defended, right? if god did not want slavery to exist, slavery would have been moved or condemned. they would also use this as an example. we talked about this in a thin way on monday. i wanted to come back for what we are doing next. in this letter, paul has a slave who has come to him, run away from his master. it is a great way in a lot of ways cussed the slave is taking stuff from the master. the slave has run away, has come to paul. paul writes a letter back and sends it with him back to the slaveholder. often the way this letter is used is to say paul had seen

slavery as morally reprehensible -- if the slave runs to you just keep him, right? don't send them back to the slave owner. what happens in the text is interesting. if you go to verse 15, i want you to hear this. paul writes, perhaps this is the reason he separated from you for a while -- the idea of running away -- so that you might have him back forever. verse 16 says, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, that how much more to you? the reason i want you to pay attention to those two versus, how you read the text has to do with how you are experiencing this issue of slavery. if you are a slaveholder, you might put more emphasis on, so that you may have him back

forever. but if you are a slave, what you might hear is this part -- no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother. see how that one passage can actually work in two different direct shins except the person -- two different directions, except the person doing the interpreting things the other direction is not right. the slave owner says this clearly says that slavery should exist. paul sends the slave back to the slaveholder. clearly slavery is not morally reprehensible. generally speaking, slaves will not use this text as a defense right? but i wanted you to hear that -- not as a slave. more than a slave. a beloved brother, right? this passage, this text has the ability to work in two different directions. i am highlighting this point.

you read it for class on monday. i am not going to read the whole thing. what i want you to pay attention to are the highlights. de biwow's reasoning would be perfectly fair if the bible taught nothing about the subject of slavery. abolitionists were arguing that the bible called it morally reprehensible, but they argued it not from a "biblical perspective." the rider, an anonymous rider says the bible does have some to say about slavery. this idea of production from general principle is an important interpretive move. so, here's how you would do this. if you are making a general

argument about morally -- slavery might be morally reprehensible -- more than a slave in the text. make sense? what you're pointing to is it does not say slavery says you should get rid of it. but paul makes an argument bigger right? no longer as a slave. he is a brother. he is an equal. so, by the way, slave's will argue, no, that is not what is stated. the reason that is important is slaves became part of a process within the evangelical movement for why reading matter. so, we are when to talk about it. some of it you already know. i'm refreshing your memory.

and i am pulling forward a little bit. so, early on in the 18th century, slave owners have an uncomfortable relationship with evangelical christianity. you somehow christen them as babies. generally, talk about them as having a born again experience. it means that you have a social standing. you are given equality with your slave masters. so they would have a hard time with christianity, or at least the idea that their slaves could participate in the evangelical movement. either way evangelicalism puts a strain on christianity. in culpeper, virginia, you have

slaves being able to bring their slave masters up on charges. they had violated them, done harm to them, asked them to work on the sabbath, which would be a good charge to bring forward being asked to work on the sabbath, the sabbath is the dale of -- day of rest. evangelicalism allows them to stand on either -- equal footing. that is the direct link. the indirect one is coming. at most in the 19th century and it is about the power of reading. lots of focus on literacy. if a book matters, you've got to be able to read it. if the word is inspired, the word is of god, it's important work and you have to be able to read it. the reason i use inspired, the holy spirit is actually helping

the reader understand. what happens in the evangelical move, who has control over what the bible says? the reader. because the reader is being inspired by god through the holy spirit. this use of literacy, the ability to read matter. it caused great strain for southerners, in particular when slaves were able to read the text and interpret it for themselves, which is why during the 19th century you are going to see a whole series of laws for bidding slaves from learning how to read. that is connected. the reason you want to keep slaves from being able to read is they might be able to, one, understand the idea of freedom but also in this particular case, they could interpret the bible. we talked about this before.

exodus becomes a prime example of this. slave owners in the 19th century to come uncomfortable with the book. exit is 21 sets -- exit usodus 21 except slaves saw a much bigger picture. the bigger picture is that a group of slaves, people anointed by god, called out by god, aren slaved by an oppressive master. god calls out a leader. the leader comes to the master, requiring that the slave be set free, and the slaves are instructed to take from their age and neighbors -- remember

the golden calf? they are taking it. right? and so, they end up out in the wilderness and god apparently has chosen slaves to side with. why this is a problem? this is a deductive argument. you read it in big terms, big story, big narrative, and you understand this. me as a slave. the work can only the justified in two different directions. the reason the production argument is going to be important is we are going to turn to galatians, the letter to the galatians, and am going to

spend some time talking to you about the way in which one particular verse is going to become important for the abolition movement. remember, i told you particularly in the american south, if you want to win an argument using the bible, what have you got to be able to do? you got to be able to read it, but you've got to be able to line up your text. the number of text. if i have more texts to talk about slavery, and you do not, who wins the argument? i do. or whoever is talking about slavery. this is the passage i want you to take a look at. in galatians chapter three verses 27 and 28. read all of this. i will talk more about galatians broadly.

there is no longer jew or greek, there is no longer slave or free there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in christ's jesus. so, here is an argument for why slavery might be morally reprehensible. in christ, there is no longer slave or free. it appears that paul is arguing the status that we share -- jew greek, slave free, even more profound male, female, all disappear under this baptism. so, if you want to work from a position of a deductive argument , you can fold into this one part of one passage.

i'm going to talk a little bit more about galatians. this is what you would have done in the new testament class. i want you to see the context for why that verse matters. in the letters to the galatians you have this turned quickly to chapter 1 -- paul an apostle sent neither by human commission nor human authority, but through jesus christ, god the father, and all the members of god's family who are with me -- in the corpus of paul letters this is an ugly opening. he is angry with them. on the surface you can't really tell that. if you were to read one of the other letters, particularly the church at philippi, he spends a lot of time talking about how much he loves them, right? there is this long opening.

in this letter, he goes to the chase, and he says, i have been sent by no human authority. jesus and god, period. why does that matter? you will get a hint of this if you look at the beginning of the chapter i pointed you to -- chapter three. it begins with you foolish relations. there is actually a cuss word right there. what he is saying is the galatians have been caught in an interesting struggle between jews who want christians to become jews, and paul, who if you look at his letter, argues that is not the case at all. no one is required to become age jew in order to become a christian. the church at galatia apparently have some people who have come and heard from these judaizers

and they question paul's authority. after that, how does he establishes authority? god sent me. not a flourishing opening. letterwriting is a genre. he's going to follow the genre. he's going to open it, but he's going to open it in a very direct manner. he is opening up about the idea the weight i and which --way in which fiath operates. -- way in which faith operates. why? because people are attacking his authority using barriers. he is pushing the idea in which faith moves us in a direction in part holding together this

idea of unity. so when you get to verses 26 tray 7 -- 26, 28, 27 -- excuse me, he is building to this moment where he can make the claim there is no longer slave or free. slaveholder will not want that verse being repeated. or -- and this is likely the case -- he slaveholder will say this is not the slavery he is talking about. the important part for you is, that is an interpretive move. the interpreter, the person making the interpretation is reading the text and making it makes sense to the world they think they already understand. so, the slaves may read the text and say, this is an example. under christ, we are all

equal. early evangelicals made that same argument. by the middle of the 19th century, that argument was no longer being made, so it was a way of changing the way the text was being understood. de bow this is what's article is trying to argue again. -- this is what de bow's article is trying to argue again. slaveholders are arguing you cannot do that. this is a version of the word of god. if you make an argument in general principle of something that is not being stated, then you have done harm to the text. slaves generally had a different experience, and they are different experience suggested they were going to read the text differently from their slaveholder masters.

so, i'm going to give you a brief history. it's a brief history august the about the way in which christianity and slave life has been argued about or argued over. for the middle of the 20th century, for the most part historians have argued that slaves simply took on the forms of christianity they encountered. when they encounter the baptists they took on the baptist form. when they encountered methodists they took on the methodist form. slaves played no role in the faith they would develop. in the mid-20th century, sociologist, more than historian , a guy named herz noia argued that slaves brought significant

religious life out of africa into the slave experience, and if you pay attention you will see that they were adapting making changes, even if scholars had not noticed. so in the middle of the 20th century, there had been a move in the direction of arguing for slaves rights, and having this religious life -- herskovitz argues this is all of the americas and the caribbean islands. for the most part, we now talk about ways in which this is a dialectic or a conversation between those experiences, the

religious experiences that came out of west africa, and how they formed the slave culture where they are located. so today you would have people who will still argue forcibly that slaves did not take on a form of christianity at all. they just mimicked it. or they took it on so much that they had the extreme argument. they had become much more comfortable with the scenario that it was adaptability. people take on different characteristics and they ship them to their own purposes and means. i will give you an example. this idea of hand. there are examples of slaves who will mimic slaveowners. the whole thing. slaves should be good and submissive slaves. there are slaves to say that. there are narrative essays

written stories that have come out. i will tell you one about john jasper. the idea that slaves embodied all of this, he did not shape any part of it. however, there is a possibility of the molding and you have to pay attention to the people individually and how they are doing this. and i will give you an example of how a text can be read in two different ways even if their experiences the same. here is the point. slaves do not have all of the same experiences across the board. so, john jasper. i will give you some background information on him. he is a preacher in the areas west of richmond, virginia. he is a slave. but he becomes famous or

notorious -- one or the other -- as a funeral preacher. so, in the middle of the 19th century, there is an adaptation that is going on. you were able to move between plantations fairly easily up through about 1830. you could move from one plantation to another. you might have to fill up paperwork while you are doing it , but you have that ability, you could move from place to place. jasper grows up in that sort of world and that changes when more restrictions are placed on him. he becomes an important funeral preacher. if you ever encounter him -- most of you won't -- he is noted because he preaches to white audiences. that is a big deal.

so, an example of why slavery is not a bad thing is you have a slave preacher who preaches to white audiences and in good evangelical mode, he apparently had the ability to slay people. he could preach and they would fall out. they were moved by the spirit. here are of that revival language we have in using? and his favorite passage was out of revelations chapter six verses one and two. then i saw the lamb opened one of the seven seals and i heard one of the four living creatures call out as with a voice of thunder, come. i looked and i saw there was a white horse. a bow was given to him and he came out conquering and to conquer. here the text seems fairly

straightforward. this is revelations. we talked about this. different periods used revelations in different ways. he was essentially preaching a funeral sermon based on the idea of resurrection. what happens when the kingdom comes. jasper appears to have been very comfortable within the slave system. here is what is interesting about him. he lived into the 20th century 1901. you can actually trace out his life into out of slavery into a pre-. and his -- into a pre-period and post reconstruction period. he will have a deferential response to slaveowners. often saying things like, without slavery i would not having counted the gospel of

jesus christ. this works. historians would often talk about that as a mimicking. he just takes on what the slave owner and has argued for and therefore has no role to play in the space that he is shaped by. if that is the dos i'll slave the other one is a rebellious slave, and that is -- if that is a docile slave, the other one is a rebellious slave, and that is not turner. net turner is a slave preacher in virginia. in the 1820's and 1830's, he has free reign in a little county in the southeast called southhampton, virginia, and he is able to move around between plantations and in this ability he pulls together a group of slaves to agree to throw off

their slaveowners. they are going to rise up in rebellion. but he also is an evangelical preacher, and so, we spent the last several weeks talking about revivalism and the use of vision and why those are important, in part to get you to turner. what turner argued is god through the holy spirit had given him a vision about what life should be like and it wasn't slavery. in fact, the vision was take up arms, kill slave owners. in particular in virginia. so, when not turner read revelations 6:1-2, he saw something different. take a look at the text again. what is he emphasizing if he is going to talk about rebellion? take a look at it.

what does it -- what is the emphasis on here? here the conquer work might actually be him, right? you take on the order to conquer and kill. see how this can go? one passage can go in different directions east on how you are reading the text. in fact, turner has this very large vision about the way in which an uprising will occur. it is not out of the question. haiti has already had a revolution. there is now a black state, a former slave states of the shores of the united states, and

so the idea that a slave society could rise up and throw off its slave masters was clearly a possibility right now. i am going to be careful for a moment to talk about this as rebellion. it is in fact an act of rebellion. they do rise up. they get roughly 75 people -- the counselor different. it is one of the most fascinating moments in history how when he supposedly confessed it was a white man, a lawyer who wrote down the confession, so it's not clear that it is turner's confession some much is someone else right thing -- writing for him. the numbers are that about 70 people participate in the rebellion. they do in fact killed turner's slave master, his wife, and children.

they go to a neighboring plantation and do the exact same thing. all told, it is under 20 people who are killed. the effect of the net turner rebellion is long-term. the remainder of the antebellum period this rebellion stamps the american south and i will point out why that matters. the first thing that happens is slave features have greater restrictions placed on them. what happened, if you have the ability to move from radiation to what might you be able to do -- from plantation to plantation, what might you be able to do? you could rise up. that was the first one. the second thing -- it limited the ability of slaves to move. it's not like they have a lot of freedom. near the 1850's, 1855, 1856,

slave preachers do start to take on more freedoms again, but it still limited in a number of ways. the second thing that happens is more than 150 slaves or free people of color are executed. there are people in georgia executed for the nat turner rebellion. they did not participate. ok? what was happening was fear among antebellum southern plantation holders that slaves might actually rise up and if they could pull it out here, you had to make sure everybody understood a could not do this. so, there was an oppressive response. i told you about this last week. i will reinforce it here. a through 1828 in the commonwealth of her genia, there

were bills being put forward in the commonwealth of the genia. after 1831, there are no more bills. does this rebellion shape how slaves during the rest of the antebellum -- so this rebellion shapes how slaves during the rest of the antebellum period art treated. today you will have read the life of frederick douglass. there are some things i want you to understand and pick up on. slave narratives are a genre. they exist just like letterwriting exists. you alright e-mails, you are following a formula, even if you do not think you are. -- you all write e-mails, you're following a formula, even if you do not think you are.

he has an argument for something written in his own hand. presumably a white person might have written the text and given the credit to a slave or former slave. you will see that, that genre had already been put in place at that time, frederick douglass has this piece published. but also slave narratives worked hard to talk about how horrible the slave experience was. these narratives were written and published almost exclusively by abolitionists and they were intended for abolitionist audiences. frederick douglas does interesting things -- frederick douglass does interesting things in that set genre. he talks about a woman who

taught him how to read. he is not lucky. slavery does not make you lucky. but he does end up in baltimore, which makes him an urban slave. at he had the ability to start to make money on his own. these are things we will read about. he starts to make money on his own. but what he gets is this ability to read text and the mistress, the one who teaches -- and she gets in trouble by her husband for teaching him how to read -- but she teaches him how to read the bible and other texts. she allows for him to learn how to read. this is his skill. douglas will tell you -- i would say it it --douglass will tell you, i would say it is ingenious. there are these white schoolboys

and they have these grammars. he becomes friends and gets him to give him a grammar, so he starts teaching himself to read as well. you're going to get more about the narrative when you read it. but this idea about a slave who has access to reading that allows him to change how he sees his life. more importantly you will think about slavery in opposition to freedom. this idea of freedom. so, i want you to pay attention when you are reading the text see how he starts to define himself as a man of letters. what is going to be interesting for us in the course of the class is actually this appendix. it comes at the very end.

he makes a pretty important statement about slaveholding christianity. what he argues is it is immoral. it is not even christian. no matter how good a good christian slaveholder was, they were not christian, because they had not understood the gospel. so, not for general discussion, but why do they make a claim they do not understand the gospel? why would he make that kind of claim when he has a slaveholder who is presumably pious, christian, who allowed him to learn how to read? what he argues is it did not matter how good she was. she could not see the system being turned upside down.

that the gospel was supposed to say there is no slave or free. do you see what he is emphasizing? the slave holder is beholden to slavery dictates how they will understand. in this particular case douglass is going to lift up something we will not spend a lot of time on in class, but if you were to take me on african-american history or history of the new south, we would spend a lot more time talking about it, the idea that white americans have not ever really understood christianity. they don't see it. they can't see it because their experience is not what african-americans have seen.

so, he -- in the appendix, you get a small taste of this. you are going to see the ways in which a former slave makes an argument for wise slaveholders could never see the hypocrisy. hypocrisy is often easy to see from the outside. so, if you encounter a hypocritical situation i.e. a professor who takes images off a website and then claims credit for them -- that is what we spend all our time doing with you guys. don't do that. that will become obviously typical. but the only way you see it is from the outsider's perspective. so it is in fact douglass's

appendix is going to get us closer to the idea about slaveholder whites. he will also argue that even abolitionist whites cannot see it. in this particular one you have the slaveholder's wife cannot understand the gospel and they have failed to understand the gospel. does that make sense. ok. how does that work? in this particular case it works through the experience of suffering. this is how the reading of scripture forms most -- most slaves could see their

story in the biblical narrative. right? he most obvious we have already talked about. exodus. if you have a people chosen by god, there is an extra burden on them but more importantly in that particular case, god is siding with the slaves, and inciting with the slaves, they themselves were understood by god. the biblical narrative was you could ultimately understand the slave experience because god understood. what is interesting is the way in which that exodus text and more important the later chosenness of the nation of israel is that requires a greater word and on the chosen. they will suffer more. you will get hence of this even

today, the idea that christians are persecuted, they are being persecuted that kind of language. this is not about individuals. this is about a people. that you have to recognize that suffering, it is pervasive and god recognizes it and when god recognizes that pervasive suffering, god sides with it. even if we are going to get treated poorly, even if we are going to get harms, even if we are going to die, god ultimately will vindicate us. so, this idea about the way that suffering works -- they do not see an oppressor having any suffering. they can't. they can't see an oppressor having loss or some sort of suffering that happened to them

but that demand on them means they are in the position -- this is that part i was getting at with frederick douglass, that ultimately they are in a position to understand how god will refine the nation, how it will make the nation better, as long as you are willing to hear it. as long as you are willing to understand it or engage it. and here is the thing. in the narrative, it is how the textual evidence -- are whites going to see it? the answer ultimately will be no. they can't see the suffering as redemptive for the people of the nation as a whole. so, what happens in this

particular case, the way in which slaves take on the text, recognize within the text their own experience and try to help others see how that experience is being carried out. by the way, it still with us. in the 20th century, you are going to get preachers and w.e.b. dubois is going to pick up on this as well as. there is something in the african-american community that will make it better but they have to pay attention to them. they have to pay attention to that experience. ok? let's take a step back for a moment. when you are reading the book of galatians, one of the things you are going to point out, besides this idea of neither slave nor free -- i want you to think

about it and then we will talk. how does the slave owner here that passage? think about that. neither slave nor free. because we have been working on the slave owner for a wild. how does a slave owner here that particular passage? more importantly, why was the slave owner -- would they not see the exit is narrative -- exodus narrative applying to the slaves within their midst? they can see the text. how come they cannot see it from the view of the slaves? here's the part where i'm going to have you talk a little bit or i hope you're going to talk a little bit -- why is it that the slave owner cannot see the text in the same way that the slave

does? >> would it be because inx it is the slaves --in exodus, -- in exodus, the slaves are all white, and the slaves are all black? professor thompson: ok. hold on to that for a minute. >> it could very well be denial. if that was the case, then a lot of the things they had been doing to the slaves would weigh heavily on their conscience which could very well do a lot of things. professor thompson: ok, good denial. abby?

>> could it be because they do not see slavery as the same way as in the bible? with the hebrews, it was oppression of another religion versus oppression of a race? it is no longer about oppression, but they are property? professor thompson: ok. similar to the comment before. anybody else? those are actually all good. yes. part of what i have been trying to get you to understand all semester -- why can't they see it relating to the slaves? because exit us --exodus -- because exodus is about whom? it is no longer about jews.

it is about them. we are a new israel. if we are a new israel, where does it you are the ones who have been let out of bondage was where? this is a narrative we continue to tell ourselves. the bondage was where? yeah, good. what would be the biblical story? your bondage is from where? yeah, european role. monarchs. so, the way they understand the story, of course this is not about slaves, because do slaves owned slaves? no, it has to be about the chosen people. who are the chosen people? we are. at an part of what i want you to spend a minute thinking about is -- that is what we are working on. people will read the text based on their own particular vantage point.

i asked you about this on monday. you guys are flummoxed that slave owners used the bible for justifying slavery? what is that baffle you? why did it bother you that they used exodus as an example question mark abby? abby: it was supporting the freedom of slavery so god was saying it was his will that slaves be free, so why would slave owners use it as an example for why people should we in slate? professor thompson: of course -- anybody else? here is the thing. they can't see this is about us.

they can use the text and it makes perfect sense. but you are looking at it from which perspective? hindsight looking back. i started the class telling you a story about exodus. yeah you got to remember way back there. four weeks ago. the slaves saw the story and saw themselves in it. you are already predisposed to reading exodus i am one direction. ok, this is about slavery. god sides with the slaves. when you encounter the text and they use it as the fence, you say, that's not -- they can't use that. yes, they can. for the very reason that they see themselves as the chosen people. so, by seeing themselves as the chosen people, the text is not about slaves.

it can't be about slaves. it's about us, me. all right. one last note. let's go back. after we spent the time talking about it we going to go back to the text, talking about the way the slaves experience the text. this will happen often. it continues to happen even today. people will use parts of text and leave other parts out. you have to pay attention to what they are leaving out. because when you leave it out you are saying something. you take this verse and not that verse. why did they leave that verse out? in this case, abolitionists do not use it very often to argue for abolition -- why did they not use this letter to argue for

abolition? what did paul do? he sends the slave back. you see why this works? there is a reason it is not being used. we are to spend a minute talking about it. paul, a prisoner of christ jesus, and timothy our coworker to the church in your house, grace to you and peace from god our father, the lord jesus christ. remember i told you letters have genre? they have form? there it is in the introduction. dear so and so. grace to you. when i remember you in my prayers i always thank my god because i hear of your love for all of the saint in your faith for the lord jesus. i pray that the sharing of your faith may be become effective when you perceive all of the good we may do for christ.

i have indeed received much joy and encouragement from your love for me. because the arts have been refreshed through you, my brother. for this reason, though i am bold enough in christ to commend you to do your duty, yet i would rather it appeal to you on the basis of love but i now as an old man and a prisoner of christ jesus, i appeal to you on behalf of of a child of whom i have become the father in prison. i am sending him, that is my own heart, after you. i wanted to keep him with me so that he might be of service to me in your place during my imprisonment for the gospel, but i prefer to do nothing without your consent i in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not being forced.

perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might send him back, no longer as a slave but more than a say, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the lord. welcome him as you would welcome me. if he has wronged you and anyway or owes you anything, charged to my account. at i, paul, and righting this with my own hand. i will repay it. i say nothing about you owing me or even your own self. yet brother, let me have this benefit from you in the lord. it would refresh my heart in christ. im writing to you knowing you will do more even than what i say. one thing more.

prepare a guest room for me. my partner and fellow prisoner in christ jesus -- grace of the lord jesus christ be with your spirit. so, here is what i want you to do for our remaining time. i want you to hear the letter. if you will remember the documents from defending slavery, how did slave owners use this letter for defending slavery? do you remember? when they point to it -- they often refer to it in a way that says had paul condemned it, he would have done what? he would not have sent the slave back. he would have kept him and he

would've said something about it. that is how it gets used. did you hear what is in the letter? for this reason, though i am bold enough to demand you do your duty, yet i would rather appeal to you on the basis of love, and i paul, do this as an old man, now also a prisoner of christ jesus. i am appealing to you on behalf of my child, whose father i have become in imprisonment. formerly he was useful to you that she was used by you, but now he is useful, both to you and to me. yes? >> could this be like a lotto

slaves or like mixed and how you should treat them? -- mulatto slaves like mixed and how you should treat them? professor thompson: [indiscernible] >> that was the slave he had while in prison, but he said he was going to send him back and treat him as a equal not as a slave. professor thompson: great. the last part is good. the first part not so much. he actually adopted him. he said what i really wanted to do was what? keep him. so what is paul originally not going to do in this letter? not return him. by the way, it was going to take a biblical scholar almost until the end of the 20th century to start picking up on this letter and the power it might have served in abolitionist argument.

when he argues he is his son, my hearts when i send him back, how should you treat him? yeah. the way you treat him is the way you would treat me. now do you hear that language of more than a slave? a beloved brother. right? here is the interesting thing. slave owners actually used deductive logic. right? remember that slide i put up for you about de bow's argument? if it is not condemned outright it is a deductive argument and you can't do that with scripture. what have slave owners been doing? a did that to argument. the general principle was the bible did not condemn slavery. what i really want you to get out of it, because of what we are doing as we move forward in the class, this idea about the

starting point of the reader. the person doing the interpretation. they are making moves -- mostly internal but intellectual moves -- trying to make the text makes sense. here is an example. he carries the letter. that means he must have did what? went to act. --went back. what is interesting is it becomes an argument for why slavery has not been condemned but the letter insults actually does make the statement about slavery. this is that moment when you are all good critical thinkers. you can ask yourself, why am i reading it that way? because i stand on what side of the slavery i stand on this side where we have already addressed it.

if we have already addressed it and find slavery morally reprehensible, what parts of the letter will i emphasize? >> [indiscernible] professor: the part that suggests slavery might not be what paul is advocating. that is the part of the letter i'm going to pick up because the next part of the letter says, paul says, i choose not to do this to you. i'm not commanding you to leave him with me. i will let you voluntarily do what? let him stay. see how this works? the text has multiple places you can come into it and interact with it. this is how we are handling history as well. the fact you might have an interpretive move, something that happens at one moment in a text, and you make a judgment

based on that one moment, there are all kinds of factors going into that interpretive move. history works the same way. you encounter an event. i make an interpretive move off of the event. here is an example. john jasper, the funeral preacher i talk about him preaching to white audiences. i am putting him in a position to suggest he might be an accommodationist to slavery. jasper later in life starts to condemn slavery. see how the individual piece of information i give you affects how you understand the person? that is the same way with the biblical text, so that is what we are doing. this is to help us move forward for next monday. when you turn to the narrative life of frederick douglass, the opening sections you are going to read, there is not a lot of conversation about the bible. the class has been about the bible.

i have been asking you to find biblical passages and how they interact. for this one i want you to pay attention to the way he describes slave life. he is a slave on the eastern shore of maryland. early on as a young man, the property will be divided. he will end up in baltimore. he gets sent back onto the eastern shore to work in a heavy labor environment. he ends up back in baltimore. baltimore is not a bed of roses at all. but it allows him to be in a position to escape, to get to freedom. i want you to experience or read a slave's experience in this environment. that is what i want you to get out of the book. when we get to the last day where we deal with the narrative

life, that is when we will pick up the appendix. the stuff we talked about today will come back up where we talk about how slaves, former slaves could read a text and understand it in a profoundly different way. are there any questions for me for today's class? anything i have talked about that was unclear or something you might want more information on? clear as mud huh? good. go in peace. >> join us each saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. and eastern -- and midnight eastern for classroom lectures on history. visit our website or download

from itunes. >> sunday night the national security reporter on the situation in the middle east and his opinion on the 2003 invasion of iraq. >> i think one of the things about the bush administration, and paul wolfowitz who never claimed to be an expert on the middle east or iraq and proved it, and history has proved it, is that we look at things from our own point of view and get deceived by it. you can go back to vietnam. that is a great example of the first time we did it openly. but we have a history of trying to think other people are like us or want our standards, and the world is different

particularly in the middle east it is a totally different culture. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. announcer: next on american history tv national park story and ranger eric martin discusses the history of ford's theater where john wilkes booth shot presently can 150 years ago. examines the timeline -- he examines the timeline. this program is a little under one hour. [applause] eric martin: as an historian, i can say this is the definitive site in the federal city and