The Power of a Bad Idea 

Howell Cobb used phony theological, pseudo-scientific babble to argue for the perpetuation of slavery.

By
163
Howell Cobb (1815-1868). (Photo By Encyclopaedia Britannica/UIG/Getty Images)

Howell Cobb had quite a résumé: speaker of the House, governor of Georgia, and secretary of the treasury. 

He was also the author of a widely read and influential book, which he penned in between leaving the governor’s mansion and his return to Washington for his Cabinet post: A Scriptural Examination of the Institution of Slavery in the United States.

“African slavery is a punishment inflicted upon the enslaved, for their wickedness,” he wrote in 1856. “Slavery, as it exists in the United States, is the Providentially-arranged means whereby Africa is to be lifted from her deep degradation, to a state of civil and religious liberty.”

Yes, Secretary Cobb would not only go on to be one of the founding fathers of the Confederacy, he was one of the chief architects of the moral case for a rebellion to protect slavery. If anybody ever tells you that the principal cause of the Civil War and object of the Confederacy was something other than the perpetuation of human bondage, you can send them over to the works of one of its leading intellectual forces, and his authoritative judgments on how the Bible commanded Americans to keep slaves.

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
163
By
Comments (163)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Just this guy

    ≥ If anybody ever tells you that the principal cause of the Civil War and object of the Confederacy was something other than the perpetuation of human bondage

    Slavery was (to their eternal shame) the principle cause of the secession of the southern states. They had a constitutional right to secede, but they should not have exercised it.

    The object of the Confederate States of America was not slavery: it was ‘to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.’

    The principal cause of the Civil War, on the other hand, was invasion, conquest and subjugation. That secession was not as peaceful as Brexit is primarily the fault of the Lincoln Administration.

    I love your writing in general, but you are just wrong here.

    Collapse
    1. Trichwages

      Ah, the Lost Cause. Was wondering when that would turn up. Funny how that only turned up as the primary cause for the war, after the loss of the war. And there is no constitutional right or mechanism for a state to secede. You are just wrong here.

      https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

      Collapse
      1. Just this guy

        > And there is no constitutional right or mechanism for a state to secede.

        The Constitution doesn’t contain any mechanism for secession. It does contain the Tenth Amendment clearly states, ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’

        Since the Constitution doesn’t give power over secession to the United States, nor does it prohibit states to secede, they retain that power.

        Did you read my very first paragraph? Yes, the seceding states did so because they shamefully wished to preserve slavery. It was morally wrong for them to do so! But they had a constitutional right to be wrong.

        Collapse
        1. Trichwages

          Yes, I did read your first paragraph :-)

          The Article X argument is illogical and conflates the purpose of Articles of Confederation used during the American Revolution with The Constitution of the new nation after the American Revolution. One would further have to believe that The Constitution, which sets forth every aspect of the new U.S. and it’s Federal government, including how States can join, simply left it to the individual States the right to dissolve the United States [EDIT: simply because any one of them could not get their own way about slavery in OTHER States? Or whatever passionate cause any one of them undertook but could not get the rest of the country to agree to on a national level? They were fully represented in Congress — Article X as the basis for secession is just not credible.]

          https://www.historynet.com/secession/

          The Federal government was not ending slavery in slave States in the run up to the war, the fight was whether it would be expanded contrary to the Missouri Compromise. In fact, the Federal government did not end slavery in slave States during the entirety of the Civil War, except through a Constitutional Amendment as a result of the Civil War.

          In addition, there is SC jurisprudence addressing the right to secession:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

          Even Confederate sympathetic “natural rights” champions at the time did not make the claim that the Constitution allowed it.

          https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/teaching-resources-for-historians/sixteen-months-to-sumter/newspaper-index/dubuque-herald/can-a-state-constitutionally-secede

          What the Southern States did, as Lincoln so correctly characterized it, was enter into armed rebellion against their government — a revolution — because they claimed rights they had never been granted.

          Collapse
          1. Just this guy

            > The Article X argument is illogical and conflates the purpose of Articles of Confederation used during the American Revolution with The Constitution of the new nation after the American Revolution.

            I did not raise Article X of the Articles of Confederation, but rather the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is, along with the rest of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

            > One would further have to believe that The Constitution, which sets forth every aspect of the new U.S. and it’s Federal government, including how States can join, simply left it to the individual States the right to dissolve the United States.

            No, it leaves the individual States the right to individually leave. This isn’t rocket science; it is a plain reading of the text in the context in which it was passed. It is originalist. It is conservative. It is correct.

            Texas v. White is just as wrong as the Dred Scott decision or Roe v. Wade: motivated reasoning by the victors of a war of conquest. Incidentally, the opinion in Texas v. White did argue that the Articles of Confederation are relevant (they are not, because the Constitution replaced them entirely).

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Mudskipper

          But then that means the fundamental object of the confederacy was to preserve slavery, does it not? As near as I can tell, the constitution of Confederate States doesn't differ that much from the United States Constitution. This means the object of of the Confederate States must lie elsewhere from the passage you quoted. If that were solely their object, they would have stayed in the union.

          Collapse
  2. Randall Briggs

    "If anybody ever tells you that the principal cause of the Civil War and object of the Confederacy was something other than the perpetuation of human bondage, you can send them over to the works of one of its leading intellectual forces, and his authoritative judgments on how the Bible commanded Americans to keep slaves."

    In addition to that, there are these comments from Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, made on 21 March 1861, barely three weeks prior to the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter. In this "Cornerstone Speech," Stephens explained why slavery was the bedrock of of Southern society, and the reason for secession and confederation.

    "The prevailing ideas entertained by [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

    "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Cthocas

    It’s unfortunate that tools like Cobb give excuse to anti-religion bigots to smear the faith as some inherently corrupt institution—in fact the earliest abolitionist writing we have in the West comes from the Church Father Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century, and many abolitionists of the 19th century were motivated precisely by their theology.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    C C Writer

    "the principle cause of the Civil War "

    Really? I mean, sure, the war was fought partially over principle, but that's not what someone means here, I'm pretty sure.

    Hello copy editors? Paging Edith "Edit" Burton!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Paul Britton

      I was about to make the same comment!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        C C Writer

        I suppose we'll soon be told he was joking.

        Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Dr. Livesey

    Thank you, Chris, for this pleasant distraction from the cares and woes of current events. I thoroughly enjoyed this jaunt into a simpler, innocent era. In our own age of wonders, we've grown more mature and our politicos would never resort to filthy racism and harebrained rummaging around the Bible or anywhere else to justify it. Our politics takes place on a higher moral level, as I'm sure Trump and Tucker Carlson and Seb Gorkha and Steve Bannon and the Jan. 6 tourists would tell you. Or Vladimir Putin.

    I wonder if Cobb knew that Blacks had already fought in American wars, most notably the Revolution (on both sides). Maybe he did. According to Quarles' "Negro in the American Revolution" or at least the forward in a modern edition, "the struggle for American independence gave a strong stimulus to Black aspirations for freedom." So, like the Devil (who, I've heard, also quotes scripture), Hobbs had a pretty good inkling that Black soldiery would lead to more pressure to improve the status of African Americans, so he tried to convince others to squelch it. Like the Devil went down to Georgia.

    I have a copy of Quarles' book but haven't gotten around to reading it or even finding my copy, but small parts of it are on this Amazon page, and that's where I got the quote:

    https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Published-Omohundro-Institute-University-ebook/dp/B00ZVEZYBA/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2J9TUV2O0YU6V&keywords=the+negro+in+the+american+revolution&qid=1678760645&s=books&sprefix=The+negro+in+the+%2Cstripbooks%2C85&sr=1-1&asin=B00ZVEZYBA&revisionId=8898c766&format=2&depth=1

    Collapse
  6. David.Neidert

    Just in case anyone is wondering, I looked it up. Cobb County, Georgia is NOT named after Howell Cobb. It is named after Thomas Cobb, his cousin.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      And are these ancestors of the very racist Ty Cobb, the baseball great?

      Collapse
      1. Randall Briggs

        Ty Cobb's racism has been greatly exaggerated. Per Wikipedia:

        Stories of Cobb's racial intolerance during his playing days were embellished and falsified by his biographers Al Stump and Charles Alexander.[151] Recent research on his life has clarified a number of stories about Cobb.[151] Five years after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, Cobb publicly supported blacks and whites playing baseball together, adding: "Certainly it is okay for them to play. I see no reason in the world why we shouldn't compete with colored athletes as long as they conduct themselves with politeness and gentility. Let me say also that no white man has the right to be less of a gentleman than a colored man; in my book that goes not only for baseball but in all walks of life."[16] Using even stronger language, Cobb told the Sporting News in 1952 that "the Negro should be accepted and not grudgingly but wholeheartedly."[152] In 1953, black newspapers cited his praise for Brooklyn Dodgers' catcher Roy Campanella, who Cobb said was "among the all-time best catchers" in baseball.[153] Following Campanella's accident that left him paralyzed, the Dodgers staged a tribute game where tens of thousands of spectators silently held lit matches above their heads. Cobb wrote the Dodgers owner to show appreciation "for what you did for this fine man."[154] Cobb also stated that Willie Mays was the "only (then-current) player I'd pay money to see."[154] In the obituaries that ran in the black press following Cobb's death, he was praised for "[speaking] in favor of racial freedom in baseball."[155]

        Also, there is an article at "Bleacher Report" that discusses the claim of Cobb's racism: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/43506-ty-cobb-was-not-a-racist.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Theirnscott

      Thanks for looking that up.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    David Eggleston

    The greatest service Cobb ever performed the United States was allowing fellow Georgian Robert Toombs to get rip-snorting drunk on Cobb’s private stash of London gin at the opening reception for the Confederate constitutional convention. It knocked the more politic Toombs out of the running for provisional Confederate president, and assured that the West Point-educated Mexican War hero, former war secretary, and chronically ill, tendentious, possibly Asperger’s suffering Mississippian Jefferson Davis would try to micromanage a loose confederation of impossibly frustrating segretarians.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Jonmckny

    Can Lin Manuel Miranda write a musical about the Civil War just so I can hear a song about this guy getting his ass handed to him.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Man, that's a musical I would love to see. The south losing and losing badly, with former slaves elevated to state houses was indeed "The World Turned Upside Down".

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Dr. Livesey

      It would have to be a farce, and it would work well as a farce.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    CVS

    Fantastic article. We need to think of stuff like this more often.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    This idea that the Bible commanded slavery was so powerful that Frederick Douglass - a devout Christian - opposed sending Bibles to slaves. This is how I remember reading it anyway.

    Collapse
    1. Randall Briggs

      Perhaps what you remember reading was in regard to the so-called "Slave Bibles" in which all passages critical of slavery were deleted.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Bell Tower

        Yes, could be.

        Collapse
Load More