Three Prize Essays on American Slavery — Reading Notes

Thurston’s Rhetoric of National Peril

Thurston’s essay, “The Error and the Duty in regard to Slavery,” relies on a series of contrasts between national prosperity and moral decay. He describes slavery as a force that “agitates” the entire country, using the word “peril” repeatedly to frame the issue as an existential threat. His prose is dense with biblical allusion and legal reasoning, often citing the Bible as the ultimate authority. In one passage, he argues that depriving slaves of the Bible is like “blotting out the sun in the heavens,” a metaphor that equates scriptural access with spiritual survival. Thurston’s tone is urgent, almost apocalyptic, as he warns of national judgment if slavery persists.

Baldwin’s Epistolary Intimacy

A. C. Baldwin’s “Friendly Letters to a Christian Slave-holder” adopts a strikingly personal format. Each of the eight letters begins with “My Dear Brother,” creating a sense of private correspondence. Baldwin uses this intimacy to soften his critique, often acknowledging the slaveholder’s good intentions before challenging them. In the fourth letter, he focuses on the spiritual harm of denying slaves the Bible, calling it “the most precious gift God has bestowed on man.” His argument is built on pathos: he imagines being stripped of all earthly goods but clinging to the Bible. The letter form allows Baldwin to vary his tone, moving from gentle reproach to vivid metaphor, as when he compares life without scripture to a shipwreck without a chart.

Williston’s Theological Interrogation

Timothy Williston’s essay, “Is American Slavery an Institution which Christianity Sanctions and will Perpetuate?” is the most directly theological of the three. He poses a single question and answers it through scriptural exegesis and moral reasoning. His method is to examine the nature of Christian institutions and measure slavery against them. Williston’s prose is more measured than Thurston’s, relying on logical progression rather than emotional crescendos. He frequently cites church authorities and denominational statements, grounding his argument in ecclesiastical consensus. The essay’s structure—question, evidence, conclusion—mirrors a sermon or a legal brief, reflecting Williston’s aim to persuade through reasoned faith.

Shared Imagery and Divergent Voices

Despite their different approaches, the three authors share a common pool of imagery: light versus darkness, navigation without a chart, and the Bible as a sun or compass. Thurston and Baldwin both use the metaphor of a ship at sea, with the Bible as the only safe guide. Yet their voices remain distinct. Thurston’s language is more abstract and national in scope; Baldwin’s is concrete and personal. Williston avoids such metaphors, preferring direct theological argument. The competition’s judging committee—which included theologian Mark Hopkins—valued these differences, awarding the top prize to Thurston but also publishing the other two as worthy contributions. Together, the essays illustrate the range of antebellum antislavery rhetoric within a Christian framework.

Readers approaching these essays should attend to the rhetorical choices each author makes: Thurston’s legal urgency, Baldwin’s epistolary warmth, and Williston’s systematic theology. The competition’s premise—that Christian unity required “kind yet faithful exhibitions of truth”—shapes all three texts. The excerpts provided here are incomplete, but they reveal how each writer balanced moral conviction with persuasive strategy. Comparing their methods offers insight into the diverse ways 19th-century clergy addressed the most divisive issue of their time.