Paper 2 of Five
Abstract
This paper names a general form: the institution whose daily operation is argued about at length and whose original acquisition is never argued about at all. Defenders and critics alike may contest how the institution should be run, who is bound by it, what its limits are, and what reforms it admits — while the question of how the holding came to be held never enters the dispute as a live question. The paper argues that this is not the ordinary quiet of a settled matter but a structural feature with detectable signatures, and that it recurs wherever a present holding rests on a past acquisition no party to the dispute wishes to examine. Antebellum American slavery is the demonstration, chosen because the origin question was uniquely available, uniquely damning, and uniquely absent from a literature that argued everything else. Five detection signatures are given, together with a method for distinguishing genuine title silence from silence legitimately earned by settled prescription — the hardest boundary in the paper and the one on which its usefulness depends. The falsification constraint: if origin-directed argument appears in the corpus at rates comparable to operation-directed argument once genre and occasion are controlled, the form has no referent.
1. The Shape of the Problem
The antebellum religious defense of slavery is an enormous literature and it argues about a great many things. It argues about the duties of masters. It argues about the sanctity of the servant’s marriage and whether families may be separated at sale. It argues about religious instruction, about the reading of Scripture by the enslaved, about the humanity of the treatment owed, about the Sabbath, about corporal correction and its limits, about whether the churches should discipline members for cruelty. Thornwell wrote at length on the master’s obligations. Southern denominational bodies passed resolutions on the moral improvement of the institution. Reformers within the defense — and there were reformers within the defense — pressed hard on the gap between the institution as it stood and the institution as they said Scripture required it to be.
All of this is argument about operation. How the thing is to be run.
Now consider a different question. Every person held in bondage in the United States in 1850 held that status by descent from someone who had been taken. Not purchased from a prior lawful owner in an unbroken chain reaching back to some legitimate origin — taken. Seized on the African coast, sold into the ships, carried across. The chain of title, followed back far enough, terminates not in a sale but in a capture, and the capture was of persons who had done nothing and owed nothing.
The Bible has a word for the man who does this. Exodus 21:16: “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.” The word appears again in 1 Timothy 1:10, where the manstealer is listed among murderers, perjurers, and the profane. Deuteronomy 24:7 repeats the sentence.
The title question and the manstealing texts should have been the center of the dispute. They were the argument the defense could least afford, because the defense’s entire warrant was Scripture and Scripture speaks to this directly and without qualification. And in a literature that argued about whether a slave’s marriage could be dissolved by sale, the question of whether the original acquisition was lawful appears with a rarity that is hard to explain by accident.
That absence — argued operation, unlitigated title — is the object of this paper.
2. The Form Stated
The unexamined title names an institution that satisfies three conditions simultaneously:
(a) Operational contestation. The institution’s conduct is a live subject of argument. Parties disagree, publish, reform, and discipline. There is nothing suppressed about the general topic; it is discussed constantly.
(b) Origin non-litigation. The question of how the present holding came to be held is not argued as a live question by any party in the main body of dispute. It may be gestured at, assumed, or handled by a formula, but it is not opened.
(c) Availability. The origin question was answerable — the facts were known or knowable, the relevant standard was in the parties’ possession, and someone in circulation had raised it.
Condition (c) is what makes the form a finding rather than an observation about the limits of historical knowledge. Where the origin is genuinely lost in time, its non-litigation is not a signature of anything. Where the origin is within living memory, documented in shipping records, and condemned by a text the parties hold binding, its non-litigation is.
The claim is not that the origin question was never raised. It was raised, and by identifiable people: by the enslaved themselves, by Weld, by Bourne, by Goodell, by the Quaker witness reaching back to Benezet and Woolman. The claim is that it did not become a question the defense had to answer, in the way that the fugitive question and the household-code question became questions the defense had to answer. It stayed outside the frame of legitimate dispute while a great deal else came inside.
3. Why the Form Is General
The paper’s larger claim is that antebellum slavery is a demonstration rather than the subject. The form recurs.
Consider the structure abstractly. A present party holds something. The holding produces ongoing conduct that can be praised, criticized, and reformed. The holding also has a history, and the history contains an acquisition. If the acquisition is defensible, examining it strengthens the present holding, and defenders will raise the origin question themselves — enthusiastically, as a founding story. Legitimate acquisitions get told as origin myths precisely because they legitimate.
The diagnostic asymmetry follows immediately: defenders raise origins that help and suppress origins that hurt, but the suppression must operate against critics too, or it fails. A defense that merely declines to mention the origin while critics hammer it has not achieved anything. The form requires that the origin question fail to become a dispute — that it be off the board for both sides, or at least off the board of the argument that counts.
That is the interesting part and the part that needs explaining. Why would critics decline an argument that helps them?
Three mechanisms, each independently sufficient:
Frame acceptance. To argue effectively inside an institution’s dispute, one must accept its terms. A critic who reforms an institution’s operation has implicitly granted that the institution exists to be reformed. Antebellum moderates who pressed for humane treatment, family integrity, and religious instruction were making real arguments and winning some of them, but every such argument concedes the holding whose title it does not question. The reformer’s leverage comes from staying inside; staying inside costs him the title question. This is the connection to the moderation finding developed elsewhere in the methodology work: mediating positions are defined positionally, and positional definition determines what a mediator may say.
Prescription’s respectability. There exists a legitimate legal doctrine — prescription, adverse possession, quiet title, laches — holding that at some remove, origin ceases to be examinable. This doctrine is not a trick; it solves a real problem, as §5 discusses at length. Its availability means that a party declining to examine origin can do so under color of a recognized principle rather than by evasion. The doctrine gives cover, and cover is what allows both sides to leave the question alone without either side appearing to duck.
Shared implication. Where the origin’s illegitimacy implicates the critic as well as the defender, both have reason to leave it closed. Northern capital financed the trade; Northern shipping carried it; Northern mills consumed its product. A Northern minister who opened the title question opened it on his own congregation’s ledgers. This is the strongest of the three mechanisms and the one most likely to transfer, because it explains bilateral silence without requiring conspiracy on either side.
4. Five Detection Signatures
None is sufficient alone. The argument is cumulative and the floor principle applies: a case is as strong as its weakest satisfied signature, not as strong as the sum.
S1 — The operation/origin ratio. Volume of argument directed at the institution’s conduct, over volume directed at its acquisition, in the same corpus and period. The ratio is only meaningful against a baseline: institutions whose origins are contested supply the comparison. Where the ratio in the target corpus exceeds the baseline by a wide margin, the signature fires.
S2 — The formula in place of an argument. Where origin is raised, it is met not with argument but with a short, repeated, unelaborated phrase — a settled-question formula. “The institution as we find it.” “Whatever may be said of the traffic, that is not our question.” The mark is that the formula does not vary between authors and is never defended. A live argument mutates as it is attacked; a formula does not, because it is not being attacked.
S3 — The condemned-precursor split. Defenders openly condemn the acquisition while defending the holding, and treat the two as unconnected. This is the most striking signature in the demonstration corpus and the least noticed. Many proslavery divines denounced the African trade in strong terms — as piracy, as manstealing, as a national crime — and drew from that denunciation no inference whatever about the status of the persons the trade had delivered. The condemnation was sincere and it was severed. A signature fires wherever a party condemns the source of its holding and treats the condemnation as bearing on nothing.
S4 — The suspended chain of title. The literature contains detailed argument about transfer, inheritance, sale, and warranty — the middle of the chain — with no argument about the chain’s first link. Legal doctrine of the period was extraordinarily developed on questions of conveyance and remedies for defective sale. That sophistication is itself evidence: it establishes that the parties were competent at title reasoning and applied it everywhere except at the origin.
S5 — Adversary non-pursuit. The critic’s failure to press. The signature fires where the critical literature, having every reason to make the origin question central, treats it as one point among many or drops it in the main-line polemic while retaining it in the specialized abolitionist tracts. Detection requires distinguishing this from strategic choice — a critic may know the argument is unanswerable and yet find it useless because his audience will not hear it. That distinction is discussed at §6.3 and is not fully solvable.
5. The Hard Boundary: Genuine Title Silence Versus Justified Prescription
The paper stands or falls here. Everything above is worthless if the form cannot be distinguished from a legitimate refusal to reopen the settled past — because that refusal is not a defect. It is a necessary feature of any workable system of holdings, and the argument for it is strong.
5.1 The case for prescription
At some point, examination of origin must stop. If every holding is vulnerable to a title challenge reaching back indefinitely, no holding is secure, no improvement is worth making, no transaction can be relied on, and the practical effect is to punish the innocent present holder for acts he did not commit and cannot remedy. Every legal system has some doctrine performing this function. Waldron’s argument on superseding historic injustice puts the philosophical case in its strongest form: circumstances change, entitlements that were valid become invalid and vice versa, and a claim rooted in an ancient wrong may be superseded by the legitimate present claims of people who were not party to it.
This is not a rationalization. It is correct. A methodology that treats all origin-silence as pathological would convict every property system on earth and would therefore convict nothing, having lost the ability to discriminate.
5.2 Six criteria for distinguishing the two
The distinguishing work is done by asking what prescription genuinely requires and checking whether those requirements are met. Six criteria:
D1 — Remoteness. Genuine prescription requires temporal distance sufficient that no party to the original acquisition and no direct victim survives. Where the taken persons or their children are alive and identifiable, prescription’s core rationale does not apply. In the demonstration corpus this criterion fails decisively: the trade continued illegally past 1808, and persons born in Africa were alive in the United States throughout the period under study.
D2 — Continuing versus completed injury. Prescription applies to a completed wrong whose effects have dispersed. It does not apply where the original wrong is ongoing in the same persons. A stolen field passes into other hands and the theft recedes; a stolen man remains stolen for as long as he is held. Where the acquisition is not a past event but a present condition, the prescription analogy collapses entirely, and this is the criterion that does the most work in the demonstration case.
D3 — Availability of remedy. Prescription is partly justified by the impossibility of unwinding. Where a remedy exists and is practicable — and manumission was practicable, legal in most jurisdictions with varying restrictions, and actually practiced — the impossibility premise fails.
D4 — Innocence of the present holder. Prescription protects the good-faith holder who neither committed nor benefited knowingly from the original wrong. Where the present holder continues to acquire on the same terms, or knowingly participates in the market the wrong created, the good-faith condition fails.
D5 — Whether the doctrine is invoked or merely relied upon. This is the discriminating criterion and the most useful one. Genuine prescription is argued: the party states the doctrine, states why the case meets its conditions, and defends the application against objection. Where the doctrine’s protective effect is enjoyed without the doctrine being invoked, the silence is not prescriptive but functional. A party who says “the origin is not examinable and here is why” has litigated title and lost or won on the merits. A party who never says it has not litigated at all. The demonstration corpus contains remarkably little of the former.
D6 — Symmetry of application. A party genuinely committed to prescription applies it against its own interest as well as for it. Where the same writers who decline to examine the origin of the holding examine origins vigorously when the outcome favors them — in disputes over church property, land claims, denominational schism, or competing land patents — the doctrine is not being held as a principle. It is being deployed as a shield.
A case satisfying D1 through D6 in the direction of failure is an unexamined title. A case where prescription is genuinely earned will pass most of them, and the paper’s method must be able to return that verdict. If it cannot, it is not a method.
5.3 A worked negative case
Method requires a case it declines to find. Consider a religious body’s title to land granted by a colonial charter two centuries prior, where the grant displaced prior inhabitants, all parties to the transaction are long dead, the displaced group’s descendants are dispersed and largely unidentifiable, no remedy short of dissolution exists, and the present holders neither participate in nor benefit from any continuing displacement.
D1 passes (remote). D2 passes (completed, if displacement is not ongoing). D3 is contested and probably passes. D4 passes. D5 and D6 must be checked empirically and may fail — if the body examines origins vigorously in its property disputes with rivals and declines to do so here, D6 fires and the case becomes mixed.
The correct verdict is not an unexamined title on the strength of D1–D4, with a possible localized signature at D6. This is what a working method looks like: it returns partial verdicts and refuses to convict on the strength of the pattern’s surface resemblance.
6. Steelmanning: The Strongest Case Against
What follows is the best case I can build against this paper. I have tried to make each objection strong enough to persuade me, and at §6.2 and §6.4 I do not think I have fully answered it.
6.1 The origin question was raised constantly — the premise is false
The objection. Abolitionist literature was saturated with the origin question. Weld’s The Bible Against Slavery opens on Exodus 21:16 and builds its central argument on manstealing. Bourne made the same argument decades earlier. Goodell’s treatment of the slave code addresses acquisition directly. The Quaker witness had pressed origin since Benezet. Douglass, Garnet, and Walker put the theft at the center of their case in terms no reader could miss. Congress abolished the trade in 1808 precisely because its illegitimacy was conceded, and the trade’s condemnation as piracy in 1820 was a public act of the whole nation.
So the origin question was not unexamined. It was examined, condemned, legislated against, and made the foundation of the strongest antislavery arguments. The paper has mistaken the defense’s silence for the dispute’s silence, and a dispute has two sides.
The strongest form. Push it further. The proslavery writers’ silence on origin is not mysterious and does not need a category. Advocates do not brief their opponent’s best point. That defenders declined to argue the argument that beat them is the least surprising fact in the history of controversy, and dignifying it with detection signatures is elaborate machinery for a triviality.
Response. I concede the factual premise fully; §2 states it and the concession is not reluctant. The claim must therefore be restated more precisely than my title states it, and the reader should judge whether the restatement is a repair or a retreat.
The claim is not that no one raised origin. It is that origin failed to become load-bearing in the dispute the defense was obliged to answer, in a way that the fugitive question and the household-code question did become load-bearing. The test is not whether critics raised it but whether defenders were compelled to meet it. Defenders wrote page after page on Deuteronomy 23 and on the household codes because those texts had entered the arena of required response. The manstealing texts, raised at least as insistently by opponents, generated a far thinner responsive literature relative to the pressure applied — mostly the single manstealing/kidnapping distinction, repeated without development across authors and decades, which is signature S2 rather than an argument.
That is a measurable claim: response volume per unit of adversary pressure, compared across texts within the same corpus. It is also more fragile than my framing suggests, and the objection has forced me to state it in a form where it can lose.
On the “advocates don’t brief the opposition” version: this proves too much. Advocates routinely brief and attempt to defuse their opponent’s best point, because leaving it unanswered concedes it. That the defense answered many adverse texts at length and this one thinly is exactly the differential that requires explanation.
6.2 The 1808 abolition dissolves the case
The objection. This is the serious one. The importation of persons was prohibited by federal law effective 1808 and the trade was declared piracy in 1820. The origin question was therefore not unlitigated — it was litigated, decided, and legislated. The proslavery writers who condemned the trade while defending domestic slavery were not performing a mysterious severance (signature S3); they were tracking the law of the land, which had drawn precisely that line. What the paper calls a condemned-precursor split is simply the national settlement restated.
Moreover, this makes the prescription defense far stronger than §5 allows. A nation that abolishes a wrongful acquisition prospectively while leaving existing holdings intact has made a recognizable political choice, of a kind made in many settlements of historic injustice. The silence that follows such a settlement is not evasion; it is the settlement working as designed.
Response. This objection has real force and I regard it as partially successful.
What I can say against it: the settlement’s own terms undercut the prescription reading. A nation that declares the trade piracy has declared its product stolen goods, and the receiver of stolen goods does not acquire title by the thief’s later prosecution. The 1820 act makes the severance harder to justify, not easier, because it commits the nation to the premise that the acquisition was theft. That premise, once adopted by statute, ought to have generated argument about the status of what the theft delivered. It generated very little. The severance therefore still requires explanation; the 1808–1820 settlement supplies its occasion rather than its justification.
What I cannot say: that the objection leaves the case where it was. It does not. It converts the demonstration from a clean case into a mixed one, and it means the strongest version of this paper’s argument is about the period after the settlement, where the severance was available as an unexamined convention rather than as a fresh political choice. It also means D1 and D4 must be evaluated separately for the pre-1808 and post-1808 populations, which I had not adequately separated.
I do not think the objection is fully answered here. It should be regarded as an open constraint on Paper 2 and the analysis at §5.2 should be redone with the settlement date as a break point before any counting is undertaken.
6.3 Adversary non-pursuit is strategy, not silence
The objection. Signature S5 treats the critic’s failure to press origin as evidence of a shared frame. But critics had every strategic reason to lead with other arguments regardless of what they believed. An argument that requires the audience to accept that their neighbors are receivers of stolen persons is an argument that loses the audience, whatever its merits. Choosing arguments by their persuasive purchase rather than their logical force is what every advocate does and implies nothing about frame acceptance.
Response. Correct, and S5 is the weakest of the five signatures for this reason. Strategy and frame acceptance produce the same observable, and I do not have a clean way to separate them from published output alone. The partial discriminator is private correspondence and internal society debate, where strategic reasoning is often stated explicitly — a critic who wrote to a colleague that the manstealing argument was true but unusable has supplied the distinction himself. That evidence exists in the abolitionist archives and has not been systematically searched for this purpose. Until it is, S5 should be reported as suggestive and should not be counted toward a cumulative case.
6.4 The form is too general to be falsifiable
The objection. “Institutions defended in operation whose origin is never litigated” describes nearly every institution. Universities, nations, denominations, corporations, professions, and families all rest on acquisitions no one examines. A category that fires everywhere discriminates nowhere. Worse, its generality invites present-day application by anyone with a grievance, and the six criteria at §5.2 are permissive enough that a motivated user can reach almost any verdict.
Response. The objection is partly right and the right part is a defect in the paper, not in the form.
The six criteria at §5.2 are meant to be restrictive, and D2 in particular is severe: it requires that the original wrong be ongoing in the same persons rather than dispersed into effects. Most institutions fail D2 immediately and exit the category. The worked negative case at §5.3 exists to demonstrate a declined finding.
But I have not shown that the criteria are restrictive in practice, because I have applied them to one positive case and one hypothetical negative. That is not enough to establish discrimination, and a reader is entitled to withhold judgment until the criteria have been run against a set of cases where the correct verdicts are independently known. Assembling that set is prior work that this paper has not done.
The misuse concern is real and I do not have a good answer to it. Any detection method for illegitimacy can be aimed. The mitigations available are the restrictiveness of D2, the requirement in D5 that a finding rest on the absence of invoked doctrine rather than on the investigator’s judgment of the origin’s merits, and the symmetry requirement at D6, which makes the method costly to apply selectively because it demands the accuser show the accused applies origin-examination inconsistently rather than merely conveniently. These reduce the risk. They do not eliminate it, and a reader who concludes the tool is too easily aimed to be published has reached a position I can respect without sharing.
6.5 The category collapses into Paper 1
The objection. Functional subtraction already covers this. The manstealing texts went uncited by free citers at the point where they bore. That is Paper 1’s phenomenon exactly, and Paper 2 is Paper 1 applied to one set of verses with a legal metaphor draped over it.
Response. The overlap is real and the boundary needs stating. Paper 1’s unit is the text: a specific verse that should have appeared and did not. Paper 2’s unit is the question: a topic that should have been a site of dispute and was not. These come apart in both directions. A question can go unlitigated with no on-point text existing — many institutional origins have no governing verse — and a text can be subtracted on a question that is otherwise heavily litigated, as with Deuteronomy 23 on the fugitive question, which was thoroughly disputed while its governing text went missing.
Where they coincide, as here, the case should be counted once, not twice. Cases satisfying both should be reported as a single finding with two descriptions, and the series should not treat the coincidence as independent confirmation.
7. Falsification Constraint
If origin-directed argument appears in the demonstration corpus at rates comparable to operation-directed argument, once genre, occasion, and adversary pressure are controlled, then the unexamined title has no referent in this case and the demonstration fails.
Three subsidiary constraints, each independently sufficient:
F1 — Response-volume parity. If responsive literature to the manstealing texts, measured per unit of adversary pressure applied, is comparable to responsive literature on the fugitive and household-code questions, then origin was litigated at normal intensity and S2 is spurious.
F2 — Baseline parity. If a comparison set of institutions whose origins are uncontroversially legitimate shows operation/origin ratios comparable to the demonstration corpus, then S1 measures a general property of institutional argument and carries no specific weight.
F3 — Criterion non-discrimination. If the six criteria at §5.2, applied blind to a set of cases with independently established verdicts, fail to separate genuine prescription from unexamined title at better than chance, the method is not a method and §5 should be withdrawn along with everything resting on it.
The commitment is to report all three whichever way they fall. F2 in particular requires building the comparison set before the primary counting, not after.
8. Scope and What Is Not Claimed
This paper does not claim that prescription is illegitimate. It is legitimate, necessary, and correctly applied in most cases the method will encounter.
It does not claim that the defenders reasoned in bad faith. §6.2 concedes that a national settlement supplied them an available line, and men reason inside available lines without noticing them.
It does not claim to have established the demonstration. The 1808 objection at §6.2 is open, the S5 signature at §6.3 is weak, and the criteria at §5.2 are untested against a verdict set. What the paper claims is that the form is real, that it is distinguishable in principle from justified prescription, and that the distinguishing work can be specified precisely enough to fail.
It does not claim transfer to present-day cases. The form is stated generally because it is general, and the temptation to aim it is exactly why the falsification constraints are severe and why §6.4’s concern is left standing rather than dismissed. Paper 4 is the designated transfer paper; this one is not.
Notes
- Unit of analysis. For S1 and F1 the unit is the argumentative move — a discrete stretch of text advancing a claim about the institution — not the page or the work. Coding scheme in the Paper 3 appendix; the operation/origin distinction is coded before the direction of the argument is known where masking is feasible.
- Adversary pressure. F1 requires an operational measure. Provisional: count of distinct adverse works placing the text at the center of their argument, weighted by circulation where circulation figures exist, within a five-year window preceding the responsive work. The measure is crude and improvements are welcome.
- The 1808 break point. Following §6.2, all counting must be reported separately for pre-1808 and post-1808 material. The pre-1808 population and the post-1808 population differ in D1 and D4 status and pooling them would produce an uninterpretable result.
- D5 and the burden it carries. Of the six criteria, D5 does the most work and is the most defensible, because it turns on a positive act by the party — invoking a doctrine — rather than on the investigator’s assessment of the origin’s merits. Where the six criteria give a mixed reading, D5 should be given priority in the report.
- The condemned-precursor split. Signature S3 requires care in coding. A condemnation of the trade that is followed by any argument connecting or disconnecting it from present holding is engagement and codes out. Only the unelaborated severance counts.
- Relation to the moderation finding. The frame-acceptance mechanism at §3 is the same structure identified in the moderation work: positional definition constrains what a mediator may argue. The two findings support each other and should not be cited as independent evidence for the underlying mechanism.
- Relation to Paper 1. See §6.5. Cases satisfying both categories are reported once. The series should carry a joint case register to prevent double-counting.
- Relation to Paper 5. The baseline requirement at F2 is a control-corpus problem and its construction procedure lives in Paper 5. No S1 claim is established until that corpus exists.
- Scripture. Quotations follow the Authorized Version, for the reason given in Paper 1: the argument turns on what a nineteenth-century reader had before him.
- On what remains undone. Two pieces of prior work are prerequisite and are not in this paper: the verdict set required by F3, and the systematic archival search for strategic reasoning in critics’ correspondence required by §6.3. Both should be completed before the demonstration is presented as established.
References
Barnes, A. (1846). An inquiry into the Scriptural views of slavery. Parry & McMillan.
Benezet, A. (1771). Some historical account of Guinea. Joseph Crukshank.
Bledsoe, A. T. (1860). Liberty and slavery. In E. N. Elliott (Ed.), Cotton is king, and pro-slavery arguments (pp. 269–458). Pritchard, Abbott & Loomis.
Bourne, G. (1845). A condensed anti-slavery Bible argument. S. W. Benedict.
Boyle, J. (2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind. Yale University Press.
Cover, R. M. (1975). Justice accused: Antislavery and the judicial process. Yale University Press.
Dabney, R. L. (1867). A defence of Virginia, and through her, of the South. E. J. Hale & Son.
Davis, D. B. (1975). The problem of slavery in the age of revolution, 1770–1823. Cornell University Press.
Douglass, F. (1845). Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass, an American slave, written by himself. Anti-Slavery Office.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1896). The suppression of the African slave-trade to the United States of America, 1638–1870. Longmans, Green.
Elliott, E. N. (Ed.). (1860). Cotton is king, and pro-slavery arguments. Pritchard, Abbott & Loomis.
Fehrenbacher, D. E. (2001). The slaveholding republic: An account of the United States government’s relations to slavery. Oxford University Press.
Finkelman, P. (1981). An imperfect union: Slavery, federalism, and comity. University of North Carolina Press.
Fox-Genovese, E., & Genovese, E. D. (2005). The mind of the master class: History and faith in the Southern slaveholders’ worldview. Cambridge University Press.
Garnet, H. H. (1848). The past and the present condition, and the destiny, of the colored race. J. H. Tobitt.
Genovese, E. D. (1998). A consuming fire: The fall of the Confederacy in the mind of the white Christian South. University of Georgia Press.
Goodell, W. (1852). The American slave code in theory and practice. American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.
Haynes, S. R. (2002). Noah’s curse: The biblical justification of American slavery. Oxford University Press.
Holifield, E. B. (2003). Theology in America: Christian thought from the age of the Puritans to the Civil War. Yale University Press.
Hopkins, J. H. (1864). A Scriptural, ecclesiastical, and historical view of slavery. W. I. Pooley.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE.
Lange, J. (1966). The argument from silence. History and Theory, 5(3), 288–301.
Mathews, D. G. (1977). Religion in the Old South. University of Chicago Press.
McGrew, T. (2014). The argument from silence. Acta Analytica, 29(2), 215–228.
Morris, T. D. (1996). Southern slavery and the law, 1619–1860. University of North Carolina Press.
Noll, M. A. (2006). The Civil War as a theological crisis. University of North Carolina Press.
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books.
Proctor, R. N., & Schiebinger, L. (Eds.). (2008). Agnotology: The making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Raboteau, A. J. (1978). Slave religion: The “invisible institution” in the antebellum South. Oxford University Press.
Rediker, M. (2007). The slave ship: A human history. Viking.
Ross, F. A. (1857). Slavery ordained of God. J. B. Lippincott.
Sherwin-White, A. N. (1963). Roman society and Roman law in the New Testament. Oxford University Press.
Simpson, A. W. B. (1986). A history of the land law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Smylie, J. (1836). A review of a letter from the Presbytery of Chillicothe to the Presbytery of Mississippi on the subject of slavery. William A. Norris.
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.
Swartley, W. M. (1983). Slavery, Sabbath, war, and women: Case issues in biblical interpretation. Herald Press.
Thornwell, J. H. (1850). The rights and the duties of masters. Walker & James.
Tise, L. E. (1987). Proslavery: A history of the defense of slavery in America, 1701–1840. University of Georgia Press.
Trouillot, M.-R. (1995). Silencing the past: Power and the production of history. Beacon Press.
Tushnet, M. V. (1981). The American law of slavery, 1810–1860: Considerations of humanity and interest. Princeton University Press.
Waldron, J. (1992). Superseding historic injustice. Ethics, 103(1), 4–28.
Waldron, J. (2004). Settlement, return, and the supersession thesis. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 5(2), 237–268.
Walker, D. (1829). Walker’s appeal, in four articles. Published by the author.
Weld, T. D. (1838). The Bible against slavery. American Anti-Slavery Society.
Wiecek, W. M. (1977). The sources of antislavery constitutionalism in America, 1760–1848. Cornell University Press.
Woolman, J. (1754). Some considerations on the keeping of Negroes. James Chattin.
