Do slaves exercise religious autonomy? We can see the difference in how two historians respond to this question. Among many who said that slaves did indeed exercise religious autonomy, Albert J. Raboteau was one who believed that slaves engaged in religious freedom. He argues, “The blacks were flocking to hear the message of salvation in hitherto unseen numbers”(Raboteau, 378). He says that Protestantism encouraged many free blacks and slaves to preach. They were doing it, even though the whites told them not to. In contrast, historian John B. Boles argues that they weren’t entirely given religious autonomy considering there were many practices within the churches done differently between the races. Raboteau makes the point that slaves were…show more content… Conversely, Boles argues that going to these churches allowed them to protect them from the consequences of slavery. He says “Participation in the biracial churches was one of the ways slaves found the moral and psychological strength to survive their bondage” (Boles, 389). They did this to gain moral support and psychological resilience as slaves. Slaves found strength in expressing their religious freedom despite their enslaved status. Unlike Raboteau, Boles argues they attended these sermons more for their personal benefit such as protection and to build stronger relationships with the whites rather than just to exercise spiritual gifts. When Raboteau mentions Hush Harbors, he believes they were a spot given by their owners in which they were able to practice in the way they would like to because they found more communal support with each other instead of being too attached to whites. Raboteau says, “Hush Harbors were places where they could pray, preach, and sing free from white control”(Raboteau, 381). His point is that they were indeed free because they were in a spot where no white individuals were found. For that reason, they were able to freely
