Conservative Virtue-Signaling over Frederick Douglass Is a Big Mistake

Louisiana’s Superintendent of Education Dr. Cade Brumley stirred up a bit of a tempest by recommending Prager U resources to Louisiana’s teachers as supplemental teaching material.  Encouraging teachers to use material outside the monopolistic, Left-leaning textbook racket is a good idea, and should be expanded, but Prager U should come with some warning signs for those who care about the faithful presentation of history. 
 
The two Prager U videos about Frederick Douglass that Scott McKay included in his story about Dr. Brumley are good examples.  The videos portray Mr. Douglass as a peace-loving, non-violent abolitionist content with incremental efforts to end slavery within the established constitutional system.  More specifically, they imply that he is the opposite of folks like the George Floyd protesters, who sated themselves with murder, arson, and looting in 2020.  This is not historically accurate. 
 
Mr. Douglass’s speech on 3 December 1860 in honor of John Brown is a case-in-point.  John Brown was one of the vilest Yankees (may God have mercy on his soul), determined to stir up a murderous slave revolt in the South.  He gave it his best shot at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, in 1859, a venture planned and funded by some of the most wealthy and influential men of the North (the Secret Six), but it failed: 
 

On Sunday, October 16, 1859, Brown and his army shifted into action. They entered Harpers Ferry and captured several hostages, while a second group abducted Lewis Washington, a descendant of the American Cincinnatus, plundering his home for good measure. Among the family heirlooms stolen were a pistol that had been given to our first President by the Marquis de Lafayette and a dress sword given by Frederick the Great of Prussia. Brevet Colonel Robert E. Lee and Lieutenant J.E.B. Stuart were dispatched to Harpers Ferry, where, within less than 36 hours, Brown’s attempt at fomenting a mass slave insurrection was brought to its ignominious end. By the final assault, ten of Brown’s terrorists were killed, with another seven later arrested and executed. One Federal soldier was killed, as were six civilians, including Mayor Fontaine Beckham. Though John Brown did not accomplish his mission on that October day, the war that he had hoped to spark was little more than one year away. ​

One would expect Mr. Douglass, if he were the sort of man shown in the Prager U videos, to have denounced this heinous act, but he did the opposite.  Here are his own words from 1860 praising John Brown and encouraging acts of violence and terror against Southerners: ​

From my heart of hearts I endorse the sentiment expressed by Mr. Phillips, of approval of all methods of proceeding against slavery, politics, religion, peace, war, Bible, Constitution, disunion, Union–(laughter)–every possible way known in opposition to slavery is my way. But the moral and social means of opposing slavery have had a greater prominence, during the last twenty-five years, than the way indicated by the celebration of this day–I mean the John Brown way. This is a recent way of opposing slavery; and I think, since it is in consequence of this peculiar mode of advocating the overthrow of slavery that we have had a mob in Boston today, it may be well for me to occupy the few moments I have in advocating John Brown’s way of accomplishing our object. (Applause.) 
​

 . . . We must, as John Brown, Jr.–thank God that he lives and is with us to-night! (applause)–we must, as John Brown Jr., has taught us this evening, reach the slaveholder’s conscience through his fear of personal danger. We must make him feel that there is death in the air about him, that there is death in the pot before him, that there is death all around him. We must do this in some way. It can be done. . . . The negroes of the South must do this; they must make these slaveholders feel that there is something uncomfortable about slavery–must make them feel that it is not so pleasant, after all, to go to bed with bowie-knives, and revolvers, and pistols, as they must. This can be done, and will be done–(cheers)–yes, I say will be done. . . .  
 
I say, sir, that I want the slaveholders to be made uncomfortable. Every slave that escapes helps to add to their discomfort. I rejoice in every uprising at the South. Although the men may be shot down, they may be butchered upon the spot, the blow tells, notwithstanding, and cannot but tell. Slaveholders sleep more uneasily than they used to. They are more careful to know that the doors are locked than they formerly were. They are more careful to know that their bowie-knives are sharp; they are more careful to know that their pistols are loaded. This element will play its part in the abolition of slavery. . . .  
 
Something is said about the dissolution of the Union under Mr. Lincoln or under Mr. Buchanan. I am for dissolution of the Union–decidedly for dissolution of the Union! . . . In case of such a dissolution, I believe that men could be found at least as brave as Walker, and more skillful than any other fillibuster, who would venture into those States and raise the standard of liberty there, and have ten thousand and more hearts at the North beating in sympathy with them. I believe a Garibaldi would arise who would march into those States with a thousand men, and summon to his standard sixty thousand, if necessary, to accomplish the freedom of the slave. (Cheers.) 
 
 . . . The only way to make the Fugitive Slave Law a dead letter, is to make a few dead slave-catchers. (Laughter and applause.) There is no need to kill them either–shoot them in the legs, and send them to the South living epistles of the free gospel preached here at the North. (Renewed laughter.) 

And if Christianity still means anything to conservatives in the States, they might also want to know that Mr. Douglass venerated two rather questionable German thinkers – Ludwig Feuerbach and David Strauss (busts of them rested on his fireplace mantle), both of whom were intent on remaking Christianity to conform to skeptical, humanistic Modernity. 
 
This isn’t the first time that Prager U has been dishonest about the past.  They have posted videos about slavery and its role in the misnamed Civil War and about Reconstruction that have also told some exceptionally grand whoppers. 
 
For those who might think all this fussing about the past doesn’t amount to very much, they need to think again.  There is a direct line from Northern abolitionist thinking to modern insanities like homosexual marriage and trans rights.  Neil Kumar gets the ball rolling: ​

Religious apostasy combined with political fervor in the North to forge the new faith of militant abolitionism. New England was long a hotbed of heresy, as the grandchildren of the Puritans drifted into Unitarianism, denying the divinity of Jesus Christ and openly scorning the inerrancy of the Scripture, deconstructing the Word of God into tattered “mountains of footnotes, denials, and arguments.” Abolitionism infused with Unitarianism cloaked itself in the language of Christian rhetoric, in which slavery was rendered a “sin,” and Southerners incorrigible, unrepentant “sinners,” fit for nothing short of the fires of Hell. ​

Rod O’Barr adds important details: ​

When both sides turned to the Bible to defend their positions, surprisingly the Christian abolitionists were often forced to place more authority on reform ideology than upon Scripture. Northern Christians became more susceptible to unorthodox doctrines and hermeneutical methods. The Southern Christians tended to be more conservative and dependent upon the literal teachings of Scripture as their ultimate authority. Here we recognize a fundamental difference between Northern and Southern Christianity at that time. As the North continually attacked Southern honor with accusations of “sinful” slave holding, Southerners were forced to put their own secular Enlightenment sensitivities on the backburner as they revisited biblical arguments that favored slavery. Becoming increasingly acclimated to a defense of slavery forced upon them by their agitators, they developed an amplified recognition of the fact that their Southern society was religiously different from that of the North. . . .  
 
In essence the religion of the South and the Southern worldview, was based upon a belief that God’s will for the individual and society is “objectively” revealed in the Bible and upheld by orthodox tradition. By contrast, the religion of the North stressed the subjective “spirit of Christianity” through which God’s will for the individual and society was known. The Scriptures had a secondary role.  The religion of the South believed that man’s sinful nature precluded any utopian goal of creating a perfect society. The enthusiasm of revival focused more on personal conversion than social reform. By contrast, the religion of the North believed in the perfectibility of man. Society could be perfected by abolishing any social institution that inhibited the moral perfection of individuals. In the North, the enthusiasm of revival was focused on social institutional reform, and so conversion became subordinate to emancipation. In essence, the reform movement itself was becoming a religion. Reform conscience judged everything by reform standards rather than biblical standards. Reform became the test of faith, calling into question the very fundamentals of Christianity. Some Northern abolitionists went so far as to say they would give allegiance to their own reform ideals if they proved contradictory to the will of God. The Bible was assessed not by what it said but by what a 19th century reformer’s moral code held it should say. ​

We see this exact same twisting of Christianity in President Biden’s 2024 Pride Month Proclamation: ​

To the entire LGBTQI+ community — and especially transgender children — please know that your President and my entire Administration have your back.  We see you for who you are:  made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect, and support.  That is why I have taken historic action to protect the LGBTQI+ community.  ​

God is not the author of sinful behavior, nor does He call upon us to support it, but the progressives today, like their radical abolitionist forefathers, continue to try to reshape Christianity to fit their beliefs. 
 
Given the slippery, downward slope of Christian revisionism the Northern abolitionists have placed folks in the US upon, how should one view slavery to avoid those false teachings and their woke offspring? 
 
To answer that, let’s look at El Salvador.  The situation President Bukele inherited was atrocious:  The murder rate, driven by gang violence, was at an unbelievably high level (one murder per hour by 2015).  Bukele’s answer was a forceful crackdown, mainly through mass incarceration of gang members: ​

One of Bukele’s first public projects was the building of what’s being called a super prison that houses upwards of 40,000 prisoners. The prison has been showcased across the nation as a colossal deterrence against gang-related activity. Bukele also implemented a mandatory 40-year prison sentence for anyone involved in gang-related activity. Bukele’s massive crackdown on violent crime has resulted in the arrest of over 64,000 violent criminals. He has arrested virtually every one of those 60,000 gang members, and it’s changing El Salvador like never before. The homicide rate in El Salvador has plummeted. Before Bukele came to power, El Salvador averaged 108 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, one of the highest in the world. The murder rate today is now just 8 murders per 100,000. The murder rate has dropped by more than 90%!  ​

What Bukele was facing with regard to gang violence was essentially what folks in the colonies (mostly in Dixie) were facing with an influx of pagan Africans: trying to find the best way to deal with a bad situation.  The answers in both cases were similar:  restrictions of freedoms until the gangs and until the Africans showed they were capable of exercising freedom in a responsible way (this is also why most teenagers can’t vote, and why children are under obedience to their parents).  That chafes ‘secular Enlightenment sensitivities,’ but for traditional Christians it makes sense, for they understand that sin must be restrained, or individuals and society as a whole will suffer temporal and eternal harm.  No less a Church authority than St. Augustine of Hippo (+430) writes in The City of God, 
 

. . . the condition of slavery is the result of sin. And this is why we do not find the word "slave" in any part of Scripture until righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name. It is a name, therefore, introduced by sin and not by nature.  . . .  by nature, as God first created us, no one is the slave either of man or of sin. This servitude is, however, penal, and is appointed by that law which enjoins the preservation of the natural order and forbids its disturbance; for if nothing had been done in violation of that law, there would have been nothing to restrain by penal servitude. ​

Put another way, as long as there is sin, then slavery, whether in the form of Bukele’s massive prisons or the much milder Southern form of paternalistic bondage, may be needed to deal with it.  One of the South’s own notable Christian philosophers, Reverend Robert Lewis Dabney (reposed in 1898), says this in his usual inimitable way in his A Defence of Virginia and the South (p. 259): ​

Domestic servitude, as we define and defend it, is but civil government in one of its forms. All government is restraint; and this is but one form of restraint. As long as man is a sinner, and his will perverted, restraint is righteous. We are sick of that arrogant and profane cant, which asserts man's 'capacity for self-government' as a universal proposition; which represents human nature as so good, and democratic government as so potent, that it is a sort of miraculous panacea, sufficient to repair all the disorders of man's condition. All this ignores the great truths, that man is fallen; that his will is disordered, and therefore ought not to be his rule; that God, his owner and master, has ordained that he shall live under authority. What fruit has radical democracy ever borne, except factious oppression, anarchy, and the stern necessity for despotism? ​

Prager U has a problem.  Some of its content is informed by the same heretical, man-worshipping Enlightenment spirit that drove Northern abolitionists to support horrific acts of violence against Southerners and that still drives harmful ideologies like transgenderism today.  Folks in the States are growing rather desperate to see better times.  If they follow the Enlightenment path, they will not find it.  Only by rejecting idols and yielding to Christ will those times come, the same Christ who is able to take even lowly slaves and raise them up into the highest echelons of the Heavenly Kingdom.  It is written of St. Blandina (+177), one of the illustrious Martyrs of Vienne in France, ​

 . . . Blandina, a slave, in whom Christ has shown us that those whom men look on with contempt, and whose condition places them below the regard of the world, are often raised to the highest honours by Almighty God for their ardent love of him, manifested more by works than words or empty show. She was of so weak a constitution, that we were all alarmed for her, and her mistress, one of the martyrs, was full of apprehensions that she would not have the courage and resolution to make a free and open confession of her faith. But Blandina was so powerfully assisted and strengthened, that she bore all the torments her executioners, who relieved each other, could ply her with from break of day till night; they owned themselves conquered, protested they had no more torments in reserve, and wondered how she could live after what she had endured from their hands; declaring that they were of opinion that any one of the torments inflicted on her would have been sufficient to despatch her, according to the common course of nature, instead of the many violent ones she had undergone. But that blessed person, like a valiant combatant, received fresh strength and vigour from the confession of her faith. The frequent repetition of these words: “I am a Christian; no wickedness is transacted among us:” took off the edge of her pains, and made her appear insensible to all she suffered. 
 ​

St. John (+1730), a Christian soldier captured by Turkish Muslims and made their slave, is another powerful example of a slave attaining the highest level of achievement for a man or woman – holiness, sainthood. 
 
Sin is the greatest problem afflicting mankind, not slavery.  The latter is the result of the former.  If we eradicate sin, we will necessarily eradicate slavery.  Freedom in Christ is therefore the truest and best form of abolition available to mankind.  That is the message that Prager U, Dr. Brumley, and all conservatives ought to be spreading, not a presentation of a Frederick Douglass who never existed nor utopian Enlightenment democratic theories.  Sowing these latter will only cause us to reap in tears and lamentations another harvest of virulent social justice ideologies and their fervent adherents. ​