Protestant Reformation and Slavery?

Question

Hi. I am developing a topic for a senior seminar on Slavery in Early Modern Europe. I am looking for a correlation (or possibly causation) between Luther's Protestant Reformation and Slavery. By slavery I am referring to actual bondage, rather than an abstract economic or social slavery. Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear - I wasn't referring to the trans-Atlantic slave trade with Africa, rather slaves in general (ie: the moors or christians).

Answer 1

Sorry, the facts don't support the idea.

Involvement in the African slave trade began with the Portuguese, then the Spanish (countries, where the Reformation had very few adherents) and BEFORE the Reformation. The first slaves were brought to Portugal in 1441. Slaves were being brought to work on South American and Caribbean plantations (under Portuguese and Spanish rule) by 1502.

http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/slavery/a/slavery_2.htm
http://www.njstatelib.org/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/AAHCG/unit2.html
http://www.antislavery.org/breakingthesilence/slave_routes/slave_routes_portugal.shtml

See also these timelines (from a site with a LOT of excellent material on slavery, abolition and emancipation!)
http://www.brycchancarey.com/slavery/chrono2.htm
http://www.brycchancarey.com/slavery/chrono3.htm

Furthermore, there was NO slavery amongst the early Protestants in Northern Europe --not among German Lutherans, nor Swiss Reformed, nor the (mostly Calvinistic) Reformers in England -- nor any teaching.

As for the attempts to use the Bible to JUSTIFY slavery on such preposterous grounds as the "curse on Ham" (which actually is a "curse on Canaan" in the Bible, these came MUCH later. . . and AFTER many Protestants had begun biblical arguments AGAINST slavery. Please note that the vast majority of the leaders and members of the crusade to abolish the slave trade, then slavery, were evangelical Protestants, first in Britain, then in the U.S. These were the people criticized in their day for "imposing their religion and morality" on society (William Wilberforce got that a lot).

In other words, it was precisely the most serious/devout Protestants who spearheaded the campaign AGAINST slavery. (And note that the growing arguments for God-given "human rights" -- articulated by Enlightenment philosophers and American patriots-- drew heavily on Protestant religious convictions.)

I've never seen anything in the teachings of the Reformers, their writings, creeds or catechisms, that would offer ANY solid foundation for support of slavery and the slave trade. On the contrary, the very foundations of the Protestant Reformation rested on the appeal to the "common man", whence the drive to translate and place of Scriptures in the hands of the PEOPLE (anti-hierarchical), to educate them to read it, etc. (And in places where the Reformation had the freest hand -- such as Switzerland and later Puritan New England -- we find MORE equality with MORE people participating in government [seen as 'by compact', that is, by the consent of the governed!] This ANTI-hierarchical tendency would offer little ideological support to the institution of slavery.)

A better direction to look for the Northern involvement in slavery, is the ECONOMIC benefits of slavery and slaves as a commodity of trade -- which enticed people into the business, regardless of its morality or immorality. The TRADE aspect helps explain the NORTHERN involvement, as the Dutch and English grew their wealth through trading. On the NATIONAL scale the "mercantilist" system --under which the European powers proceeded to explore, colonize and exploit the New World for the good of the mother country-- may have provided incentives to slavery and the trade.

Answer 2

I don't think you can make any direct connection. Most of the early slave traders and slave owners were Protestants rather than Roman Catholics, but this seems to arise only from a pretty systematic difference between the trading activities of Northern European nations compared to Southern ones.

The interpretation of certain Biblical references to justify slavery was not specifically Protestant. You might be able to make something of the fact that Protestants could read the Bible freely in their own language, while Roman Catholics would have had to know Latin, but it's not a key issue - the slavery came first, and the Biblical so-called justification for it was quite a bit later.

To get any convincing material, you will need to find evidence for a different attitude to slavery among Roman Catholics of the time.

Answer 3

I found an interesting article about the reformation vs Confucius and slavery.

This saying by Confucius is the exact contrapositive of the command given by Jesus Christ to his followers.6 Confucianism set forth five pairs of relationships to observe: the emperor and subject, the father and son, the husband and wife, the elder and younger brother, and the elder and younger friend. In these relationships, "the superior member (parents, husband, etc.) has the duty of benevolence and care for the subordinate member (children, wife, etc.) The subordinate member has the duty of obedience."7 These relationships created the concept of xiào, or filial piety, that Confucius considered very important. In comparison, both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism stressed the importance of these same relationships, though they did not did not stress all of the relationships set forth by Confucianism and more often stressed the concepts behind such relationships.........Luther's Protestant Reformation in Europe contrasted with this Neo-Confucian reform in China because instead of resulting from new religions challenging Roman Catholicism, it resulted from the dominance of Roman Catholicism. Not only did the Roman Catholic Church control and manipulate much of daily life in Europe during and previous to the sixteenth century, it also prohibited any other religion or Christian denomination in Europe. Though at that time very few people could read the Bible since the Roman Catholicism only allowed Latin copies of the scriptures20 (which contrasted with Confucianism where almost anyone could read the Confucian canon), Martin Luther, a priest and professor in Wittenberg, began to read the Bible one day in search of the truth. .......
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw20neoConfucProtestant32010220.htm

ontrary to popular belief, the Puritans were not ascetics. They liked good food, good drink, and homely comforts. Nor were they social levelers, for they believed that God made some men subordinate to others. Indeed, subordination was the very soul of order because all persons in authority, whether in family, church, or state, represented Christ himself. Nor were men equal among themselves. The old were superior to the young, the educated to the uneducated, and the rich to the poor.http://www.vernonjohns.org/vernjohns/sthprtst.html

I am sure you can find more if you research reformation and slavery etc.