diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:36:27 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:36:27 -0700 |
| commit | f875f543e7532ed6363b594678905a7b7569a772 (patch) | |
| tree | 7f04c75371febf2bef0e28cbc1712e14fc85ec39 /old/11271-h | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old/11271-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/11271-h/11271-h.htm | 28840 |
1 files changed, 28840 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/11271-h/11271-h.htm b/old/11271-h/11271-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..325c736 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/11271-h/11271-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,28840 @@ + +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> +<html lang="en"> + <!--THIS FILE IS GENERATED FROM AN XML MASTER. + DO NOT EDIT--> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> + + <title>THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER Part 1 of 4</title> + <meta name="author" content="The American Anti-Slavery Society"> + <meta name="generator" content="Text Encoding Initiative Consortium XSLT stylesheets"> + <meta name="DC.Title" content="THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER Part 1 of 4"> + <meta name="DC.Type" content="Text"> + <meta name="DC.Format" content="text/html"> + </head> + <body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 1 of 4 +by American Anti-Slavery Society + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 1 of 4 + +Author: American Anti-Slavery Society + +Release Date: February 25, 2004 [EBook #11271] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, PART 1 OF 4 *** + + + + +Produced by Stan Goodman, Amy Overmyer and PG Distributed Proofreaders + + + + + +</pre> + + <p><a name="TOP"></a></p> + <table summary="titlepage" class="header" width="100%"> + <tr> + <td rowspan="3"></td> + <td align="left"> + <h2 class="institution"></h2> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="left"> + <h1 class="maintitle">THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER Part 1 of 4</h1> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> </td> + <td align="left"> By The American Anti-Slavery Society 1836</td> + </tr> + </table> + <hr> + <div class="contents"> + <h2><a name="toc"></a></h2> + <ol> + <li><a name="d0e41"></a><a href="#E1" class="ref">No. 1. To the People of the United States; or, To Such + Americans As Value Their Rights, and Dare to Maintain Them.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e44"></a><a href="#E2" class="ref">No. 2. Appeal to the Christian Women of the + South.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e47"></a><a href="#E2RC" class="ref">No. 2. Appeal to the Christian Women of the South. + Revised and Corrected.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e50"></a><a href="#E3" class="ref">No. 3. Letter of Gerrit Smith to Rev. James Smylie, of + the State of Mississippi.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e53"></a><a href="#E4" class="ref">No. 4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the + Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human Rights.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e56"></a><a href="#E4r3" class="ref">No. 4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into + the Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human Rights. Third + Edition—Revised.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e59"></a><a href="#E4r4" class="ref">No. 4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into + the Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human Rights. Fourth + Edition—Enlarged.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e62"></a><a href="#E5" class="ref">No. 5. Power of Congress Over the District of + Columbia.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e65"></a><a href="#E5wA" class="ref">No. 5. Power of Congress Over the District of + Columbia. With Additions by the Author.</a></li> + </ol> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h2><a name="E1"></a> + THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER + <br><br><br> + VOL. I. AUGUST, 1836. NO. 1. + <br><br></h2> + <p> + TO THE + <br> + PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES; + <br> + OR, TO SUCH AMERICANS AS VALUE THEIR RIGHTS, AND + <br> + DARE TO MAINTAIN THEM. + <br></p> + <p>FELLOW COUNTRYMEN!</p> + <p> + A crisis has arrived, in which rights the most important which + civil society can acknowledge, and which have been acknowledged + by our Constitution and laws, in terms the most explicit which language + can afford, are set at nought by men, whom your favor has + invested with a brief authority. By what standard is your liberty + of conscience, of speech, and of the press, now measured? Is it by + those glorious charters you have inherited from your fathers, and + which your present rulers have called Heaven to witness, they would + preserve inviolate? Alas! another standard has been devised, and + if we would know what rights are conceded to us by our own servants, + we must consult the COMPACT by which the South engages on certain + conditions to give its trade and votes to Northern men. All rights + not allowed by this compact, we now hold by sufferance, and our + Governors and Legislatures avow their readiness to deprive us of + them, whenever in their opinion, legislation on the subject shall be + "necessary<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE1_FN1"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE1_FN1"></a>." This compact is not indeed published to the world, + under the hands and seals of the contracting parties, but it is set forth + in official messages,—in resolutions of the State and National Legislatures—in + the proceedings of popular meetings, and in acts of + lawless violence. The temples of the Almighty have been sacked, + because the worshipers did not conform their consciences to the + compact<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE1_FN2"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE1_FN2"></a>. + Ministers of the gospel have been dragged as criminals + from the altar to the bar, because they taught the people from the + Bible, doctrines proscribed by the + compact<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE1_FN3"><sup>C</sup></a><a name="FootE1_FN3"></a>. Hundreds of free + citizens, peaceably assembled to express their sentiments, have, because + such an expression was forbidden by the compact, been forcibly + + dispersed, and the chief actor in this invasion on the freedom of + speech, instead of being punished for a breach of the peace, was rewarded + for his fidelity to the compact with an office of high trust and + honor<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE1_FN4"><sup>D</sup></a><a name="FootE1_FN4"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE1_FN1"></a><a href="#FootE1_FN1">A</a>: See the Messages of the + Governors of New-York and Connecticut, the resolutions + of the New-York Legislature, and the bill introduced into the Legislature + of Rhode Island. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE1_FN2"></a><a href="#FootE1_FN2">B</a>: Churches in New-York attacked by the mob in 1834. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE1_FN3"></a><a href="#FootE1_FN3">C</a>: See two cases within the last twelve months in New Hampshire. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE1_FN4"></a><a href="#FootE1_FN4">D</a>: Samuel Beardsley, Esq. the leader of the Utica riot, was shortly afterwards + appointed Attorney General of the state of New-York. + </p> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + <p> + POSTAGE—This Periodical contains one sheet, postage under 100 miles, is 1 1-2 cents + over 100 miles, 2 1-2 cents. + + </p> + <p> + "The freedom of the press—the palladium of liberty," was once a + household proverb. Now, a printing office<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE1_FN5"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE1_FN5"></a> is entered by ruffians, + and its types scattered in the highway, because disobedient to the + compact. A Grand Jury, sworn to "present all things truly as they + come to their knowledge," refuse to indict the offenders; and a senator + in Congress rises in his place, and appeals to the outrage in the + printing office, and the conduct of the Grand Jury as evidence of the + good faith with which the people of the state of New York were + resolved to observe the compact<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE1_FN6"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE1_FN6"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE1_FN5"></a><a href="#FootE1_FN5">A</a>: Office of the + Utica Standard and Democrat newspaper. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE1_FN6"></a><a href="#FootE1_FN6">B</a>: See speech of the Hon. Silas Wright in the + U.S. Senate of Feb. 1836. + </p> + <p> + The Executive Magistrate of the American Union, unmindful of + his obligation to execute the laws for the equal benefit of his fellow + citizens, has sanctioned a censorship of the press, by which papers + incompatible with the compact are excluded from the southern mails, + and he has officially advised Congress to do by law, although in violation + of the Constitution, what he had himself virtually done already + in despite of both. The invitation has indeed been rejected, but by + the Senate of the United States only, after a portentous struggle—a + struggle which distinctly exhibited the <em>political</em> conditions of the compact, + as well as the fidelity with which those conditions are observed + by a northern candidate for the Presidency. While in compliance + with these conditions, a powerful minority in the Senate were forging + fetters for the PRESS, the House of Representatives were employed + in breaking down the right of PETITION. On the 26th May last, the + following resolution, reported by a committee was adopted by the + House, viz. + + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + "Resolved, that all Petitions, Memorials, Resolutions + and Propositions relating in any way, or to any extent + whatever, to the subject of Slavery, shall without being + either printed or referred, be laid on the table, and that + no further action whatever shall be had thereon." Yeas, + 117. Nays, 68. + + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + Bear with us, fellow countrymen, while we call your attention to + the outrage on your rights, the contempt of personal obligations and + the hardened cruelty involved in this detestable resolution. Condemn + us not for the harshness of our language, before you hear our justification. + We shall speak only the truth, but we shall speak it as + freemen. + + </p> + <p> + The right of petition is founded in the very institution of civil government, + and has from time immemorial been acknowledged as + among the unquestionable privileges of our English ancestors. This + right springs from the great truth that government is established for + + the benefit of the governed; and it forms the medium by which the + people acquaint their rulers with their wants and their grievances. + So accustomed were the Americans to the exercise of this right, even + during their subjection to the British crown, that, on the formation + of the Federal Constitution, the Convention not conceiving that it + could be endangered, made no provision for its security. But in the + very first Congress that assembled under the new Government, the + omission was repaired. It was thought some case might possibly + occur, in which this right might prove troublesome to a dominant + faction, who would endeavor to stifle it. An amendment was therefore + proposed and adopted, by which Congress is restrained from + making any law abridging "the right of the People, peaceably to assemble, + and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." + Had it not been for this prudent jealousy of our Fathers, instead of + the resolution I have transcribed, we should have had a LAW, visiting + with pains and penalties, all who dared to petition the Federal Government, + in behalf of the victims of oppression, held in bondage by + its authority. The present resolution cannot indeed consign such + petitioners to the prison or the scaffold, but it makes the right to petition + a congressional boon, to be granted or withheld at pleasure, + and in the present case effectually withholds it, by tendering it + nugatory. + + </p> + <p> + Petitions are to inform the Government of the wishes of the people, + and by calling forth the action of the Legislature, to inform the constituents + how far their wishes are respected by their representatives. + The information thus mutually given and received is essential to a + faithful and enlightened exercise of the right of legislation on the one + hand, and of suffrage on the other. But the resolution we are considering, + provides that no petition in relation to slavery, shall be + printed for the information of the members, nor referred to a committee + to ascertain the truth of its statements; nor shall any vote be + taken, in regard to it, by which the People may learn the sentiments + of their representatives. + + </p> + <p> + If Congress may thus dispose of petitions on one subject, they + may make the same disposition of petitions on any and every other + subject. Our representatives are bound by oath, not to pass any law + abridging the right of petition, but if this resolution is constitutional, + they may order every petition to be delivered to their door-keeper, + and by him to be committed to the flames; for why preserve petitions + on which <em>no action can be had</em>? Had the resolution been directed + to petitions for an object palpably unconstitutional, it would + still have been without excuse. The construction of the Constitution + is a matter of opinion, and every citizen has a right to express that + opinion in a petition, or otherwise. + + </p> + <p> + But this usurpation is aggravated by the almost universal admission + that Congress does possess the constitutional power to legislate on + the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia and the Territories. + No wonder that a distinguished statesman refused to sanction the + right of the House to pass such a resolution by even voting against + + it<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE1_FN7"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE1_FN7"></a>. The men + who perpetrated this outrage had sworn to support + the Constitution, and will they hereafter plead at the bar of their Maker, + that they had kept their oath, because they had abridged the right + of petition <em>by a resolution</em>, and not by law! + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE1_FN7"></a><a href="#FootE1_FN7">A</a>: Mr. J.Q. Adams, on his + name being called, refused to vote, saying, "the resolution + is in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, and the + privileges of the members of this House." + </p> + <p> + This resolution not only violates the rights of the people, but it + nullifies the privileges and obligations of their representatives. It is + an undoubted right and duty of every member of Congress to propose + any measure within the limits of the Constitution, which he believes + is required by the interests of his constituents and the welfare of his + country. Now mark the base surrender of this right—the wicked + dereliction of this duty. All "resolutions and propositions" relating + "in <em>any way</em> or to <em>any extent</em> whatever to the subject of slavery," + shall be laid on the table, and "no further action <em>whatever</em> shall be + had thereon." What a spectacle has been presented to the American + people!—one hundred and seventeen members of Congress relinquishing + their own rights, cancelling their own solemn obligations, + forcibly depriving the other members of their legislative privileges, + abolishing the freedom of debate, condemning the right of petition, + and prohibiting present and future legislation on a most important + and constitutional subject, by a rule of order! + + </p> + <p> + In 1820, the New-York Legislature instructed the representatives + from that state in Congress, to insist on making "the prohibition of + slavery an indispensable condition of admission" of certain territories + into the union. In 1828, the Legislature of Pennsylvania instructed + the Pennsylvania members of Congress, to vote for the abolition of + slavery in the district of Columbia. In vain hereafter shall a representative + present the instructions of his constituents, or the injunctions + of a sovereign state. No question shall be taken, or any + motion he may offer, in <em>any way</em>, or to <em>any extent</em>, relating to slavery! + + </p> + <p> + Search the annals of legislation, and you will find no precedent for + such a profligate act of tyranny, exercised by a majority over their + fellow legislators, nor for such an impudent contempt of the rights + of the people. + + </p> + <p> + But this resolution is no less barbarous than it is profligate and + impudent. Remember, fellow countrymen! that the decree has + gone forth, that there shall be no legislation by Congress, <em>in any + way</em>, or to <em>any extent whatever</em>, on the subject of slavery. Now call + to mind, that Congress is the local and only legislature of the District + of Columbia, which is placed by the Constitution under its "exclusive + jurisdiction <em>in all cases whatsoever</em>." In this District, there are thousands + of human beings divested of the rights of humanity, and subjected + to a negotiable despotism; and Congress is the only power + that can extend the shield of law to protect them from cruelty and + abuse; and that shield, it is now resolved, shall not be extended in + any way, or to any extent! But this is not all. The District has + become the great slave-market of North America, and the port of + + Alexandria is the Guinea of our proud republic, whence "cargoes of + despair" are continually departing<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE1_FN8"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE1_FN8"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE1_FN8"></a><a href="#FootE1_FN8">A</a>: One + dealer, John Armfield, advertises in the National Intelligencer of the 10th + of February last, that he has three vessels in the trade, and they will leave the port + of Alexandria on the first and fifteenth of each month. + </p> + <p> + In the city which bears the name of the Father of his country, + dealers in human flesh receive licenses for the vile traffic, at four + hundred dollars each per annum; and the gazettes of the Capital have + their columns polluted with the advertisements of these men, offering + cash for children and youth, who, torn from their parents and families, + are to wear out their existence on the plantations of the south.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE1_FN9"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE1_FN9"></a> + For the safe keeping of these children and youth, till they are shipped for + the Mississippi, private pens and prisons are provided, and the UNITED STATES' JAIL + used when required. The laws of the District in relation + to slaves and free negroes are of the most abominable and iniquitous + character. Any free citizen with a dark skin, may be arrested + on pretence of being a fugitive slave, and committed to the UNITED STATES' PRISON, + and unless within a certain number of days he + proves his freedom, while immured within its walls, he is, under authority + of Congress, sold as a slave for life. Do you ask why? Let + the blood mantle in your cheeks, while we give you the answer of the + LAW—"to pay his jail fees!!" + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE1_FN9"></a><a href="#FootE1_FN9">A</a>: Twelve + hundred negroes are thus advertised for in the National Intelligencer + of the 28th of March last. The negroes wanted are generally from the age of ten + or twelve years to twenty-five, and of both sexes. + </p> + <p> + On the 11th of January, 1827, the Committee for the District of + Columbia, (themselves slaveholders) introduced a bill providing that + the jail fees should hereafter be a county charge. The bill did not + pass; and by the late resolution, a statute unparalleled for injustice + and atrocity by any mandate of European despotism, is to be like the + law of the Medes and Persians, that altereth not, since no proposition + for its repeal or modification can be entertained. + + </p> + <p> + The Grand Jury of Alexandria presented the slave trade of that + place, as "disgraceful to our character as citizens of a free government," + and as "a grievance demanding legislative redress;" that is, + the interposition of Congress—but one hundred and seventeen men + have decided that there shall be "no action whatever" by Congress + in relation to slavery. + + </p> + <p> + In March, 1816, John Randolph submitted the following resolution + to the House of Representatives: "<em>Resolved</em>, That a Committee be + appointed to inquire into the existence of an <em>inhuman</em> and illegal + traffic of slaves, carried on in and through the District of Columbia, + and to report whether any, and what measures are necessary for putting + a stop to the same." The COMPACT had not then been formed + and the resolution <em>was adopted</em>. Such a resolution would <em>now</em> "be + laid on the table," and treated with silent contempt. + + </p> + <p> + In 1828, eleven hundred inhabitants of the District presented a + petition to Congress, complaining of the "DOMESTIC SLAVE-TRADE" + as a grievance disgraceful in its character, and "even more demoralizing + + its influence" than the foreign traffic. The petition concluded + as follows: "The people of this District have within themselves no + means of legislative redress, and we therefore appeal to your Honorable + body as the <em>only one</em> vested by the American Constitution with + power to relieve us." No more shall such appeals be made to the + national council. What matters it, that the people of the District are + annoyed by the human shambles opened among them? What matters + it, that Congress is "the only body vested by the American Constitution + with power to relieve" them? The compact requires that no + action shall be had on <em>any</em> petition relating to slavery. + + </p> + <p> + The horse or the ox may be protected in the District, by act of + Congress, from the cruelty of its owner; but MAN, created in the + image of God, shall, if his complexion be dark, be abandoned to every + outrage. The negro may be bound alive to the stake in front of the + Capitol, as well as in the streets of St. Louis—his shrieks may resound + through the representative hall—and the stench of his burning body + may enter the nostrils of the law-givers—but no vote may rebuke the + abomination—no law forbid its repetition. + + </p> + <p> + The representatives of the nation may regulate the traffic in sheep + and swine, within the ten miles square; but the SLAVERS of the District + may be laden to suffocation with human cattle—the horrors of + the middle passage may be transcended at the wharves of Alexandria; + but Congress may not limit the size of the cargoes, or provide for the + due feeding and watering the animals composing them!—The District + of Columbia is henceforth to be the only spot on the face of the globe, + subjected to a civilized and Christian police, in which avarice and + malice may with legal impunity inflict on humanity whatever sufferings + ingenuity can devise, or depravity desire. + + </p> + <p> + And this accumulation of wickedness, cruelty and baseness, is to + render the seat of the federal government the scoff of tyrants and the + reproach of freemen FOREVER! On the 9th of January 1829, the + House of Representatives passed the following vote. "<em>Resolved</em>, that + the committee of the District of Columbia be instructed to inquire into + the expediency of providing by law, for the gradual abolition of Slavery + in the District, in such manner that no individual shall be injured + thereby." Never again while the present rule of order is in force, + can similar instructions be given to a committee—never again shall + even an inquiry be made into the expediency of abolishing slavery + and the slave-trade in the District. What stronger evidence can we + have, of the growing and spreading corruption caused by slavery, + than that one hundred and seventeen republican legislators professed + believers in Christianity—many of them from the North, aye even + from the land of the Pilgrims, should strive to render such curses + PERPETUAL! + + </p> + <p> + The flagitiousness of this resolution is aggravated if possible by + the arbitrary means by which its adoption was secured. No representative + of the People was permitted to lift up his voice against it—to + plead the commands of the Constitution which is violated—his + own privileges and duties which it contemned—the rights of his + constituents + + on which it trampled—the chains of justice and humanity + which it impiously outraged. Its advocates were afraid and ashamed + to discuss it, and forbidding debate, they perpetrated in silence the + most atrocious act that has ever disgraced an American + Legislature<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE1_FN10"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE1_FN10"></a>. And was no reason whatever, it may be asked, assigned for this + bold invasion of our rights, this insult to the sympathies of our common + nature? Yes—connected with the resolution was a preamble + explaining its OBJECT. Read it, fellow countrymen, and be equally + astonished at the impudence of your rulers in avowing such an object, + and at their folly in adopting such an expedient to effect it. The lips + of a free people are to be sealed by insult and injury! + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE1_FN10"></a><a href="#FootE1_FN10">A</a>: A debate was allowed on a motion to + re-commit the report, for the purpose of preparing a resolution that Congress + has no constitutional power to interfere with + slavery in the District of Columbia; but when the sense of the House was to be + taken on the resolution reported by the committees, all debate was prevented by + the previous question. + </p> + <p> + "Whereas, it is extremely important and desirable that the AGITATION + on this subject should be finally ARRESTED, for the purpose of + restoring <em>tranquillity</em> to the public mind, your committee respectfully + recommend the following resolution." + + </p> + <p> + ORDER REIGNS IN WARSAW, were the terms in which the triumph + of Russia over the liberties of Poland was announced to the world. + When the right of petition shall be broken down—when no whisper + shalt be heard in Congress in behalf of human rights—when the press + shall be muzzled, and the freedom of speech destroyed by gag-laws, + then will the slaveholders announce, that TRANQUILLITY IS RESTORED TO THE PUBLIC MIND! + + </p> + <p> + Fellow countrymen! is such the tranquillity you desire—is such + the heritage you would leave to your children? Suffer not the present + outrage, by effecting its avowed object, to invite farther aggressions + on your rights. The chairman of the committee boasted that + the number of petitioners the present session, for the abolition of slavery + in the District, was <em>only</em> thirty-four thousand! Let us resolve, + we beseech you, that at the next session the number shall be A MILLION. + Perhaps our one hundred and seventeen representatives will + then abandon in despair their present dangerous and unconstitutional + expedient for tranquilizing the public mind. + + </p> + <p> + The purpose of this address, is not to urge upon you our own views + of the sinfulness of slavery, and the safety of its immediate abolition; + but to call your attention to the conduct of your rulers. Let no one + think for a moment, that because he is not an abolitionist, his liberties + are not and will not be invaded. <em>We</em> have no rights, distinct from + the rights of the whole people. Calumny, falsehood, and popular + violence, have been employed in vain, to tranquilize abolitionists. + It is now proposed to soothe them, by despoiling them of their Constitutional + rights; but they cannot be despoiled <em>alone</em>. The right of + petition and the freedom of debate are as sacred and valuable to those + who dissent from our opinions, as they are to ourselves. Can the + Constitution at the same time secure liberty to you, and expose us to + + oppression—give you freedom of speech, and lock our lips—respect + your right of petition, and treat ours with contempt? No, fellow + countrymen!—we must be all free, or all slaves together. We implore + you, then, by all the obligations of interest, of patriotism, and of + religion—by the remembrance of your Fathers—by your love for your + children, to unite with us in maintaining our common, and till lately, + our unquestioned political rights. + + </p> + <p> + We ask you as men to insist that your servants acting as the local + legislators of the District of Columbia, shall respect the common + rights and decencies of humanity.—We ask you as freemen, not to + permit your constitutional privileges to be trifled with, by those who + have sworn to maintain them.—We ask you as Christian men, to remember + that by sanctioning the sinful acts of your agents, you yourselves + assume their guilt. + + </p> + <p> + We have no candidates to recommend to your favor—we ask not + your support for any political party; but we do ask you to give your + suffrages hereafter only to such men as you have reason to believe + will not sacrifice your rights, and their own obligations, and the claims + of mercy and the commands of God, to an iniquitous and mercenary + COMPACT. If we cannot have northern Presidents and other officers + of the general government except in exchange for freedom of conscience, + of speech, of the press and of legislation, then let all the + appointments at Washington be given to the South. If slaveholders + will not trade with us, unless we consent to be slaves ourselves, then + let us leave their money, and their sugar, and their cotton, to perish + with them. + + </p> + <p> + Fellow countrymen! we wish, we recommend no action whatever, + inconsistent with the laws and constitutions of our country, or the + precepts of our common religion, but we beseech you to join with us + in resolving, that while we will respect the rights of others, we will at + every hazard maintain our own. + + </p> + <p><em>In behalf of the American Anti-Slavery Society.</em></p> + <p> + ARTHUR TAPPAN, \<br> + WM. JAY, \<br> + JNO. RANKIN, \<br> + LEWIS TAPPAN, \<br> + S.S. JOCELYN, \<br> + S.E. CORNISH, | <i>Executive Committee</i>.<br> + JOSHUA LEAVITT, /<br> + ABRAHAM L. COX, /<br> + AMOS A. PHELPS, /<br> + LA ROY SUNDERLAND, /<br> + THEO. S. WRIGHT, /<br> + ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR. /<br></p> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br><br> + Published by the American Anti-Slavery Society, corner of Spruce + and Nassau Streets. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h2><a name="E2"></a><br><br> + THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + <br><br><br> + + VOL. I. SEPTEMBER 1836. No. 2. + <br><br><br> + + APPEAL + <br> + TO THE + <br> + CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH, + <br><br><br></h2> + <p> + BY A.E. GRIMKÉ. + + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + "Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not within thyself that thou shalt + escape in the king's house more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace + at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another + place: but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou + art come to the kingdom for such a time as this. And Esther bade them return Mordecai + this answer:—and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to law, and <em>if I perish, + I perish.</em>" Esther IV. 13-16. + + </p> + </blockquote> + <p>RESPECTED FRIENDS,</p> + <p> + It is because I feel a deep and tender interest in your present and + eternal welfare that I am willing thus publicly to address you. Some + of you have loved me as a relative, and some have felt bound to me + in Christian sympathy, and Gospel fellowship; and even when compelled + by a strong sense of duty, to break those outward bonds of + union which bound us together as members of the same community, + and members of the same religious denomination, you were generous + enough to give me credit, for sincerity as a Christian, though you + believed I had been most strangely deceived. I thanked you then + for your kindness, and I ask you <em>now</em>, for the sake of former confidence, + and former friendship, to read the following pages in the spirit + of calm investigation and fervent prayer. It is because you have + known me, that I write thus unto you. + + </p> + <p> + But there are other Christian women scattered over the Southern + States, and of these, a very large number have never seen me, and + never heard my name, and feel <em>no</em> personal interest whatever in <em>me</em>. + But I feel an interest in <em>you</em>, as branches of the same vine from whose + root I daily draw the principle of spiritual vitality—Yes! Sisters + in Christ I feel an interest in <em>you</em>, and often has the secret prayer + arisen on your behalf, Lord "open thou their eyes that they may see + wondrous things out of thy Law"—It is then, because I <em>do feel</em> and + <em>do pray</em> for you, that I thus address you upon a subject about which + of all others, perhaps you would rather not hear any thing; but, + "would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly, and indeed + bear with me, for I am jealous over you with godly jealousy." + Be not afraid then to read my appeal; it is <em>not</em> written in the heat of + passion or prejudice, but in that solemn calmness which is the result + of conviction and duty. It is true, I am going to tell you unwelcome + truths, but I mean to speak those <em>truths in love</em>, and remember + Solomon says, "faithful are the <em>wounds</em> of a friend." I do not believe + the time has yet come when <em>Christian women</em> "will not endure + sound doctrine," even on the subject of Slavery, if it is spoken to + them in tenderness and love, therefore I now address <em>you</em>. + + </p> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + <p> + POSTAGE.—This periodical contains four and a half sheets. Postage under 100 + miles, 6 3-4 cents; over 100 miles, 11 1-4 cents. + Please read and circulate. + + </p> + <p> + To all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers, (for + you are all <em>one</em> to Christ,) I would speak. I have felt for you at this + time, when unwelcome light is pouring in upon the world on the + subject of slavery; light which even Christians would exclude, if + they could, from our country, or at any rate from the southern portion + of it, saying, as its rays strike the rock bound coasts of New + England and scatter their warmth and radiance over her hills and + valleys, and from thence travel onward over the Palisades of the + Hudson, and down the soft flowing waters of the Delaware and + gild the waves of the Potomac, "hitherto shalt thou come and no + further;" I know that even professors of His name who has been + emphatically called the "Light of the world" would, if they could, + build a wall of adamant around the Southern States whose top might + reach unto heaven, in order to shut out the light which is bounding + from mountain to mountain and from the hills to the plains and valleys + beneath, through the vast extent of our Northern States. But + believe me, when I tell you, their attempts will be as utterly fruitless + as were the efforts of the builders of Babel; and why? Because + moral, like natural light, is so extremely subtle in its nature as to + overleap all human barriers, and laugh at the puny efforts of man to + control it. All the excuses and palliations of this system must inevitably + be swept away, just as other "refuges of lies" have been, by + the irresistible torrent of a rectified public opinion. "The <em>supporters</em> + of the slave system," says Jonathan Dymond in his admirable work + on the Principles of Morality, "will <em>hereafter</em> be regarded with the <em>same</em> + public feeling, as he who was an advocate for the slave trade <em>now is</em>." + It will be, and that very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged + by all the virtuous and the candid, that in <em>principle</em> it is as + sinful to hold a human being in bondage who has been born in + Carolina, as one who has been born in Africa. All that sophistry + of argument which has been employed to prove, that although it is + sinful to send to Africa to procure men and women as slaves, who + have never been in slavery, that still, it is not sinful to keep those in + bondage who have come down by inheritance, will be utterly overthrown. + We must come back to the good old doctrine of our forefathers + who declared to the world, "this self evident truth that <em>all</em> + men are created equal, and that they have certain <em>inalienable</em> rights + among which are life, <em>liberty</em>, and the pursuit of happiness." It is + even a greater absurdity to suppose a man can be legally born a + slave under <em>our free Republican</em> Government, than under the petty + despotisms of barbarian Africa. If then, we have no right to enslave + an African, surely we can have none to enslave an American; if it is + a self evident truth that <em>all</em> men, every where and of every color are + born equal, and have an <em>inalienable right to liberty</em>, then it is equally + true that <em>no</em> man can be born a slave, and no man can ever <em>rightfully</em> + be reduced to <em>involuntary</em> bondage and held as a slave, however fair + may be the claim of his master or mistress through wills and title-deeds. + + </p> + <p> + But after all, it may be said, our fathers were certainly mistaken, for + the Bible sanctions Slavery, and that is the highest authority. Now + the Bible is my ultimate appeal in all matters of faith and practice, + and it is to <em>this test</em> I am anxious to bring the subject at issue between + us. Let us then begin with Adam and examine the charter + of privileges which was given to him. "Have dominion over the fish + of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing + that moveth upon the earth." In the eighth Psalm we have a still + fuller description of this charter which through Adam was given to all + mankind. "Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of + thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet. All sheep and + oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, the fish of + the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." + And after the flood when this charter of human rights was renewed, + we find <em>no additional</em> power vested in man. "And the fear of you + and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and + every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth, and + upon all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered." + In this charter, although the different kinds of <em>irrational</em> beings are + so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion over <em>all of them</em> is + granted, yet <em>man</em> is <em>never</em> vested with this dominion <em>over his fellow + man;</em> he was never told that any of the human species were put + <em>under his feet;</em> it was only <em>all things</em>, and man, who was created in + the image of his Maker, <em>never</em> can properly be termed a <em>thing</em>, though + the laws of Slave States do call him "a chattel personal;" <em>Man</em> + then, I assert <em>never</em> was put <em>under the feet of man</em>, by that first charter + of human rights which was given by God, to the Fathers of the + Antediluvian + and Postdiluvian worlds, therefore this doctrine of equality + is based on the Bible. + + </p> + <p> + But it may be argued, that in the very chapter of Genesis from + which I have last quoted, will be found the curse pronounced upon + Canaan, by which his posterity was consigned to servitude under his + brothers Shem and Japheth. I know this prophecy was uttered, and + was most fearfully and wonderfully fulfilled, through the immediate + descendants of Canaan, <i>i.e.</i> the Canaanites, and I do not know but + it has been through all the children of Ham, but I do know that + prophecy does <em>not</em> tell us what <em>ought to be</em>, but what actually does + take place, ages after it has been delivered, and that if we justify + America for enslaving the children of Africa, we must also justify + Egypt for reducing the children of Israel to bondage, for the latter + was foretold as explicitly as the former. I am well aware that + prophecy + has often been urged as an excuse for Slavery, but be not + deceived, the fulfillment of prophecy will <em>not cover one sin</em> in the awful + day of account. Hear what our Saviour says on this subject; "it + must needs be that offences come, but <em>woe unto that man through + whom they come</em>"—Witness some fulfillment of this declaration in the + tremendous destruction of Jerusalem, occasioned by that most nefarious + + of all crimes the crucifixion of the Son of God. Did the fact + of that event having been foretold, exculpate the Jews from sin in + perpetrating it; No—for hear what the Apostle Peter says to them + on this subject, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel + and foreknowledge of God, <em>ye</em> have taken, and by <em>wicked</em> hands have + crucified and slain." Other striking instances might be adduced, but + these will suffice. + + </p> + <p> + But it has been urged that the patriarchs held slaves, and therefore, + slavery is right. Do you really believe that patriarchal servitude was + like American slavery? Can you believe it? If so, read the history of + these primitive fathers of the church and be undeceived. Look at + Abraham, though so great a man, going to the herd himself and + fetching a calf from thence and serving it up with his own hands, for + the entertainment of his guests. Look at Sarah, that princess as her + name signifies, baking cakes upon the hearth. If the servants they + had were like Southern slaves, would they have performed such + comparatively menial offices for themselves? Hear too the plaintive + lamentation of Abraham when he feared he should have no son to + bear his name down to posterity. "Behold thou hast given me no + seed, &c., one born in my house <em>is mine</em> heir." From this it appears + that one of his <em>servants</em> was to inherit his immense estate. Is this + like Southern slavery? I leave it to your own good sense and candor + to decide. Besides, such was the footing upon which Abraham was + with <em>his</em> servants, that he trusted them with arms. Are slaveholders + willing to put swords and pistols into the hands of their slaves? He + was as a father among his servants; what are planters and masters + generally among theirs? When the institution of circumcision was + established, Abraham was commanded thus; "He that is eight days + old shall be circumcised among you, <em>every</em> man-child in your + generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of + any stranger which is not of thy seed." And to render this command + with regard to his <em>servants</em> still more impressive it is repeated + in the very next verse; and herein we may perceive the great care + which was taken by God to guard the <em>rights of servants</em> even under + this "dark dispensation." What too was the testimony given to the + faithfulness of this eminent patriarch. "For I know him that he will + command his children and his <em>household</em> after him, and they shall + keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment." Now my + dear friends many of you believe that circumcision has been superseded + by baptism in the Church; <em>Are you</em> careful to have <em>all</em> that + are born in your house or bought with money of any stranger, baptized? + Are <em>you</em> as faithful as Abraham to command <em>your household to + keep the way of the Lord?</em> I leave it to your own consciences to decide. + Was patriarchal servitude then like American Slavery? + + </p> + <p> + But I shall be told, God sanctioned Slavery, yea commanded Slavery + under the Jewish Dispensation. Let us examine this subject + calmly and prayerfully. I admit that a species of <em>servitude</em> was permitted + to the Jews, but in studying the subject I have been struck + with wonder and admiration at perceiving how carefully the servant + + was guarded from violence, injustice and wrong. I will first inform + you how these servants became servants, for I think this a very important + part of our subject. From consulting Horne, Calmet and + the Bible, I find there were six different ways by which the Hebrews + became servants legally. + + </p> + <p> + 1. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself, + i.e. his services, for six years, in which case <em>he</em> received the purchase + money <em>himself</em>. Lev. xxv, 39. + + </p> + <p> + 2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e. his <em>daughters</em>, + in which circumstance it was understood the daughter was to be the + wife or daughter-in-law of the man who bought her, and the <em>father</em> + received the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as <em>white + women</em> were in the first settlement of Virginia—as <em>wives</em>, <em>not</em> as slaves. + Ex. xxi, 7. + + </p> + <p> + 3. Insolvent debtors might be delivered to their creditors as + servants. 2 Kings iv, 1. + + </p> + <p> + 4. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold + for the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3. + + </p> + <p> + 5. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4. + + </p> + <p> + 6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be + redeemed by one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; + and he who redeemed him, was <em>not</em> to take advantage of the favor + thus conferred, and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55. + + </p> + <p> + Before going into an examination of the laws by which these servants + were protected, I would just ask whether American slaves have become + slaves in any of the ways in which the Hebrews became servants. + Did they sell themselves into slavery and receive the purchase money + into their own hands? No! Did they become insolvent, and by their + own imprudence subject themselves to be sold as slaves? No! Did + they steal the property of another, and were they sold to make restitution + for their crimes? No! Did their present masters, as an act of + kindness, redeem them from some heathen tyrant to whom <em>they had + sold themselves</em> in the dark hour of adversity? No! Were they born + in slavery? No! No! not according to <em>Jewish Law</em>, for the servants + who were born in servitude among them, were born of parents who + had <em>sold themselves</em> for six years: Ex. xxi, 4. Were the female + slaves of the South sold by their fathers? How shall I answer this + question? Thousands and tens of thousands never were, <em>their</em> fathers + <em>never</em> have received the poor compensation of silver or gold for the + tears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless bondage of + <em>their</em> daughters. They labor day by day, and year by year, side by + side, in the same field, if haply their daughters are permitted to remain + on the same plantation with them, instead of being as they often + are, separated from their parents and sold into distant states, never + again to meet on earth. But do the <em>fathers of the South ever sell their + daughters?</em> My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the + awful affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell + their daughters, <em>not</em> as Jewish parents did, to be the wives and daughters-in-law of the man who buys them, but to be the abject slaves of + + petty tyrants and irresponsible masters. Is it not so, my friends? + I leave it to your own candor to corroborate my assertion. Southern + slaves then have <em>not</em> become slaves in any of the six different ways + in which Hebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that + American masters <em>cannot</em> according to <em>Jewish law</em> substantiate their + claim to the men, women, or children they now hold in bondage. + + </p> + <p> + But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced + to servitude; it was this, he might he <em>stolen</em> and afterwards sold as a + slave, as was Joseph. To guard most effectually against this dreadful + crime of manstealing, God enacted this severe law. "He that + stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall + surely be put to death<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE2_FN1"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE2_FN1"></a>." As I have tried American Slavery by + <em>legal</em> Hebrew servitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that + Jewish law cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by + <em>illegal</em> Hebrew bondage. Have the Southern slaves then been + stolen? If they did not sell themselves into bondage; if they were + not sold as insolvent debtors or as thieves; if they were not redeemed + from a heathen master to whom they had sold themselves; if they were + not born in servitude according to Hebrew law; and if the females + were not sold by their fathers as wives and daughters-in-law to those + who purchased them; then what shall we say of them? what can we + say of them? but that according <em>to Hebrew Law they have been stolen</em>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE2_FN1"></a><a href="#FootE2_FN1">A</a>: And again, "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of + Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then <em>that + thief shall die</em>, and thou shalt put away evil from among + you." Deut. xxiv, 7. + </p> + <p> + But I shall be told that the Jews had other servants who were + absolute slaves. Let us look a little into this also. They had other + servants who were procured in two different ways. + + </p> + <p> + 1. Captives taken in war were reduced to bondage instead of + being killed; but we are not told that their children were enslaved. + Deut. xx, 14. + + </p> + <p> + 2. Bondmen and bondmaids might be bought from the heathen + round about them; these were left by fathers to their children after + them, but it does not appear that the <em>children</em> of these servants ever + were reduced to servitude. Lev. xxv, 44. + + </p> + <p> + I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of + Hebrew masters over their <em>heathen</em> slaves. Were the southern slaves + taken captive in war? No! Were they bought from the heathen? + No! for surely, no one will <em>now</em> vindicate the slave-trade so far as + to assert that slaves were bought from the heathen who were obtained + by that system of piracy. The only excuse for holding southern + slaves is that they were born in slavery, but we have seen that they + were <em>not</em> born in servitude as Jewish servants were, and that the + children of heathen slaves were not legally subjected to bondage + even under the Mosaic Law. How then have the slaves of the + South been obtained? + + </p> + <p> + I will next proceed to an examination of those laws which were + enacted in order to protect the Hebrew and the Heathen servant; for + I wish you to understand that <em>both</em> are protected by Him, of whom it is + + said "his mercies are over all his works." I will first speak of those + which secured the rights of Hebrew servants. This code was + headed thus: + + </p> + <p> + 1. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God. + + </p> + <p> + 2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in + the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. xx, + 2<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE2_FN2"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE2_FN2"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE2_FN2"></a><a href="#FootE2_FN2">A</a>: And when thou sendest him out free + from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him + <em>liberally</em> out of thy flock and out of thy floor, and + out of thy wine-press: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, shalt + thou give unto him. Deut. xv, 13, 14. + </p> + <p> + 3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were + married, then his wife shall go out with him. + + </p> + <p> + 4. If his master have given him a wife and she have borne him sons + and daughters, the wife and her children shall be his master's, and he + shall go out by himself. + + </p> + <p> + 5. If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and + my children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him + unto the Judges, and he shall bring him to the door, or unto the + door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and + he shall serve him <em>forever</em>. Ex. xxi, 3-6. + + </p> + <p> + 6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, + that it perish, he shall let him go <em>free</em> for his eye's sake. And if he + smite out his man servant's tooth or his maid servant's tooth, he shall + let him go <em>free</em> for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27. + + </p> + <p> + 7. On the Sabbath rest was secured to servants by the fourth commandment. Ex. xx, 10. + + </p> + <p> + 8. Servants were permitted to unite with their masters three times + in every year in celebrating the Passover, the feast of Pentecost, and + the feast of Tabernacles; every male throughout the land was to + appear before the Lord at Jerusalem with a gift; here the bond and + the free stood on common ground. Deut. xvi. + + </p> + <p> + 9. If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die + under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he + continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. + Ex. xxi, 20, 21. + + </p> + <p> + From these laws we learn that Hebrew men servants were bound + to serve their masters <em>only six</em> years, unless their attachment to their + employers, their wives and children, should induce them to wish to + remain in servitude, in which case, in order to prevent the possibility + of deception on the part of the master, the servant was first taken + before the magistrate, where he openly declared his intention of continuing in his master's service, (probably a public register + was kept + of such) he was then conducted to the door of the house, (in warm + climates doors are thrown open,) and <em>there</em> his ear was <em>publicly</em> bored, + and by submitting to this operation he testified his willingness to serve + him <em>forever</em>, i.e. during his life, for Jewish Rabbins who must have + understood Jewish <em>slavery</em>, (as it is called,) "affirm that servants + were set free at the death of their masters and did <em>not</em> descend to + their heirs:" or that he was to serve him until the year of Jubilee, + + when <em>all</em> servants were set at liberty. To protect servants from + violence, it was ordained that if a master struck out the tooth or + destroyed the eye of a servant, that servant immediately became + <em>free</em>, for such an act of violence evidently showed he was unfit to + possess the power of a master, and therefore that power was taken + from him. All servants enjoyed the rest of the Sabbath and partook + of the privileges and festivities of the three great Jewish Feasts; and + if a servant died under the infliction of chastisement, his master was + surely to be punished. As a tooth for a tooth and life for life was the + Jewish law, of course he was punished with death. I know that + great stress has been laid upon the following verse: "Notwithstanding, + if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is + his money." + + </p> + <p> + Slaveholders, and the apologists of slavery, have eagerly seized + upon this little passage of scripture, and held it up as the masters' + Magna Charta, by which they were licensed by God himself to + commit the greatest outrages upon the defenceless victims of their + oppression. But, my friends, was it designed to be so? If our Heavenly + Father would protect by law the eye and the tooth of a Hebrew + servant, can we for a moment believe that he would abandon that + same servant to the brutal rape of a master who would destroy even + life itself. Do we not rather see in this, the <em>only</em> law which protected + masters, and was it not right that in case of the death of a servant, one + or two days after chastisement was inflicted, to which other circumstances + might have contributed, that the master should be protected + when, in all probability, he never intended to produce so fatal a result? + But the phrase "he is his money" has been adduced to show that + Hebrew servants were regarded as mere <em>things</em>, "chattels personal;" + if so, why were so many laws made to <em>secure their rights as men</em>, and + to ensure their rising into equality and freedom? If they were mere + <em>things</em>, why were they regarded as responsible beings, and one law + made for them as well as for their masters? But I pass on now to + the consideration of how the <em>female</em> Jewish servants were protected + by <em>law</em>. + + </p> + <p> + 1. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, + then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto another nation + he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. + + </p> + <p> + 2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her + after the manner of daughters. + + </p> + <p> + 3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty + of marriage, shall he not diminish. + + </p> + <p> + 4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out <em>free</em> + without money. + + </p> + <p> + On these laws I will give you Calmet's remarks; "A father could + not sell his daughter as a slave, according to the Rabbins, until she + was at the age of puberty, and unless he were reduced to the utmost + indigence. Besides, when a master bought an Israelitish girl, it was + <em>always</em> with the presumption that he would take her to wife." + Hence Moses adds, "if she please not her master, and he does not think fit + + to marry her, he shall set her at liberty," or according to the Hebrew, + "he shall let her be redeemed." "To sell her to another nation he shall + have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her;" as to the + engagement implied, at least of taking her to wife. "If he have betrothed + her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of + daughters, i.e. he shall take care that his son uses her as his wife, + that he does not despise or maltreat her. If he make his son marry + another wife, he shall give her her dowry, her clothes and compensation + for her virginity; if he does none of these three, she shall <em>go out free</em> + without money." Thus were the <em>rights of female servants carefully + secured by law</em> under the Jewish Dispensation; and now I would + ask, are the rights of female slaves at the South thus secured? Are + <em>they</em> sold only as wives and daughters-in-law, and when not treated + as such, are they allowed to <em>go out free</em>? No! They have <em>all</em> not + only been illegally obtained as servants according to Hebrew law, + but they are also illegally <em>held</em> in bondage. Masters at the South + and West have all forfeited their claims, (<em>if they ever had any</em>,) to + their female slaves. + + </p> + <p> + We come now to examine the case of those servants who were "of + the heathen round about;" Were <em>they</em> left entirely unprotected by + law? Horne in speaking of the law, "Thou shalt not rule over him + with rigor, but shalt fear thy God," remarks, "this law Lev. xxv, 43; + it is true speaks expressly of slaves who were of Hebrew descent; + but as <em>alien born</em> slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew Church by + circumcision, <em>there is no doubt</em> but that it applied to <em>all</em> slaves;" if so, + then we may reasonably suppose that the other protective laws extended + to them also; and that the only difference between Hebrew + and Heathen servants lay in this, that the former served but six years + unless they chose to remain longer; and were always freed at the + death of their masters; whereas the latter served until the year of + Jubilee, though that might include a period of forty-nine years,—and + were left from father to son. + + </p> + <p> + There are however two other laws which I have not yet noticed. + The one effectually prevented <em>all involuntary</em> servitude, and the other + completely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were + equally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew. + + </p> + <p> + 1. "Thou shall <em>not</em> deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped + from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even + among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates + where it liketh him best: thou shall <em>not</em> oppress him." Deut. xxxiii; + 15, 16. + + </p> + <p> + 2. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim <em>Liberty</em> + throughout <em>all</em> the land, unto <em>all</em> the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a + jubilee unto you." Deut. xxv, 10. + + </p> + <p> + Here, then, we see that by this first law, the <em>door of Freedom was + opened wide to every servant who</em> had any cause whatever for complaint; + if he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him, + and <em>no man</em> had a right to deliver him back to him again, and not only + so, but the absconded servant was to <em>choose</em> where he should live, + + and no Jew was permitted to oppress him. He left his master just + as our Northern servants leave us; we have no power to compel them + to remain with us, and no man has any right to oppress them; they + go and dwell in that place where it chooseth them, and live just where + they like. Is it so at the South? Is the poor runaway slave protected + <em>by law</em> from the violence of that master whose oppression and + cruelty has driven him from his plantation or his house? No! no! + Even the free states of the North are compelled to deliver unto his + master the servant that is escaped from his master into them. By + <em>human</em> law, under the <em>Christian Dispensation</em>, in the <em>nineteenth century</em> + we are commanded to do, what <em>God</em> more than <em>three thousand</em> years + ago, under the <em>Mosaic Dispensation</em>, <em>positively commanded</em> the Jews + <em>not</em> to do. In the wide domain even of our free states, there is not + <em>one</em> city of refuge for the poor runaway fugitive; not one spot upon + which he can stand and say, I am a free man—I am protected in my + rights as a <em>man</em>, by the strong arm of the law; no! <em>not one</em>. How + long the North will thus shake hands with the South in sin, I know + not. How long she will stand by like the persecutor Saul, <em>consenting</em> + unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the raiment of them that slew + him, I know not; but one thing I do know, the <em>guilt of the North</em> + is increasing in a tremendous ratio as light is pouring in upon her on + the subject and the sin of slavery. As the sun of righteousness + climbs higher and higher in the moral heavens, she will stand still + more and more abashed as the query is thundered down into her ear, + "<em>Who</em> hath required <em>this</em> at thy hand?" It will be found <em>no</em> excuse then + that the Constitution of our country required that <em>persons bound to service</em> + escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no more + excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the forbidden + fruit. <em>He was condemned and punished because</em> he hearkened + to the voice of <em>his wife</em>, rather than to the command of his Maker; and + <em>we</em> will assuredly be condemned and punished for obeying <em>Man</em> rather + than <em>God</em>, if we do not speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for + repentance. Yea, are we not receiving chastisement even <em>now</em>? + + </p> + <p> + But by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is + disclosed. If the first effectually prevented <em>all involuntary servitude</em>, + the last absolutely forbade even <em>voluntary servitude being perpetual</em>. + On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the Jubilee trumpet + was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and <em>Liberty</em> was proclaimed + to <em>all</em> the inhabitants thereof. I will not say that the servants' + <em>chains</em> fell off and their <em>manacles</em> were burst, for there is no evidence + that Jewish servants <em>ever</em> felt the weight of iron chains, and collars, + and handcuffs; but I do say that even the man who had voluntarily + sold himself and the <em>heathen</em> who had been sold to a Hebrew master, + were set free, the one as well as the other. This law was evidently + designed to prevent the oppression of the poor, and the possibility of + such a thing as <em>perpetual servitude</em> existing among them. + + </p> + <p> + Where, then, I would ask, is the warrant, the justification, or the + palliation of American Slavery from Hebrew servitude? How many + of the southern slaves would now be in bondage according to the + + laws of Moses; Not one. You may observe that I have carefully + avoided using the term <em>slavery</em> when speaking of Jewish servitude; + and simply for this reason, that <em>no such thing</em> existed among that + people; the word translated servant does <em>not</em> mean <em>slave</em>, it is the + same that is applied to Abraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets + generally. <em>Slavery</em> then <em>never</em> existed under the Jewish Dispensation + at all, and I cannot but regard it as an aspersion on the + character of Him who is "glorious in Holiness" for any one to assert + that "<em>God sanctioned, yea commanded slavery</em> under the old dispensation." + I would fain lift my feeble voice to vindicate Jehovah's + character from so foul a slander. If slaveholders are determined to + hold slaves as long as they can, let them not dare to say that the + God of mercy and of truth <em>ever</em> sanctioned such a system of cruelty + and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him. + + </p> + <p> + We have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard + to servants was designed to <em>protect them</em> as <em>men and women</em>, to secure + to them their <em>rights</em> as <em>human beings</em>, to guard them from oppression + and defend them from violence of every kind. Let us now turn to + the Slave laws of the South and West and examine them too. I will + give you the substance only, because I fear I shall trespass too + much on your time, were I to quote them at length. + + </p> + <p> + 1. <em>Slavery</em> is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the + slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest posterity. + + </p> + <p> + 2. The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; + while the kind of labor, the amount of toil, the time allowed for rest, + are dictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages + given. A pure despotism governs the human brute; and even his + covering and provender, both as to quantity and quality, depend entirely + on the master's discretion<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE2_FN3"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE2_FN3"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE2_FN3"></a><a href="#FootE2_FN3">A</a>: There are laws in some of + the slave states, limiting the labor which the master + may require of the slave to fourteen hours daily. In some of + the states there are laws requiring the masters to furnish a certain + amount of food and clothing, as for instance, <em>one quart</em> + of corn per day, or <em>one peck</em> per week, or <em>one + bushel</em> per month, and "one linen shirt and pantaloons for + the summer, and a linen shirt and woolen great coat and pantaloons + for the winter," &c. But "still," to use the language of + Judge Stroud "the slave is entirely under the control of his + master,—is unprovided with a protector,—and, especially as + he cannot be a witness or make complaint in any known mode against his + master, the apparent object of these laws may <em>always</em> + be defeated." ED. + </p> + <p> + 3. The slave being considered a personal chattel may be sold or + pledged, or leased at the will of his master. He may be exchanged + for marketable commodities, or taken in execution for the debts or + taxes either of a living or dead master. Sold at auction, either individually, + or in lots to suit the purchaser, he may remain with his + family, or be separated from them for ever. + + </p> + <p> + 4. Slaves can make no contracts and have no <em>legal</em> right to any + property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings and the legacies + of friends belong in point of law to their masters. + + </p> + <p> + 5. Neither a slave nor a free colored person can be a witness + + against any <em>white</em>, or free person, in a court of justice, however atrocious + may have been the crimes they have seen him commit, if such + testimony would be for the benefit of a <em>slave</em>; but they may give testimony + <em>against a fellow slave</em>, or free colored man, even in cases + affecting life, if the <em>master</em> is to reap the advantage of it. + + </p> + <p> + 6. The slave may be punished at his master's discretion—without + trial—without any means of legal redress; whether his offence be + real or imaginary; and the master can transfer the same despotic + power to any person or persons, he may choose to appoint. + + </p> + <p> + 7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under <em>any</em> circumstances, + <em>his</em> only safety consists in the fact that his <em>owner</em> may + bring suit and recover the price of his body, in case his life is taken, + or his limbs rendered unfit for labor. + + </p> + <p> + 8. Slaves cannot redeem themselves, or obtain a change of masters, + though cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary + for their personal safety. + + </p> + <p> + 9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations. + + </p> + <p> + 10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even + where the master is willing to enfranchise them. + + </p> + <p> + 11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious + instruction and consolation. + + </p> + <p> + 12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a + state of the lowest ignorance. + + </p> + <p> + 13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and + right. What is a trifling fault in the <em>white</em> man, is considered highly + criminal in the <em>slave</em>; the same offences which cost a white man a + few dollars only, are punished in the negro with death. + + </p> + <p> + 14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE2_FN4"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE2_FN4"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE2_FN4"></a><a href="#FootE2_FN4">A</a>: See Mrs. Child's Appeal, Chap. II. + </p> + <p> + Shall I ask you now my friends, to draw the <em>parallel</em> between Jewish + <em>servitude</em> and American <em>slavery</em>? No! For there is <em>no likeness</em> + in the two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The + laws of Moses <em>protected servants</em> in their <em>rights as men and women</em>, + guarded them from oppression and defended them from wrong. The + Code Noir of the South <em>robs the slave of all his rights</em> as a <em>man</em>, reduces + him to a chattel personal, and defends the <em>master</em> in the exercise + of the most unnatural and unwarrantable power over his slave. + They each bear the impress of the hand which formed them. The + attributes of justice and mercy are shadowed out in the Hebrew + code; those of injustice and cruelty, in the Code Noir of America. + Truly it was wise in the slaveholders of the South to declare their + slaves to be "chattels personal;" for before they could be robbed + of wages, wives, children, and friends, it was absolutely necessary to + deny they were human beings. It is wise in them, to keep them in + abject ignorance, for the strong man armed must be bound before we + can spoil his house—the powerful intellect of man must be bound + down with the iron chains of nescience before we can rob him of his + rights as a man; we must reduce him to a <em>thing</em>; before we can claim + + the right to set our feet upon his neck, because it was only <em>all things</em> + which were originally <em>put under the feet of man</em> by the Almighty and + Beneficent Father of all, who has declared himself to be <em>no respecter</em> + of persons, whether red, white, or black. + + </p> + <p> + But some have even said that Jesus Christ did not condemn slavery. + To this I reply, that our Holy Redeemer lived and preached among + the Jews only. The laws which Moses had enacted fifteen hundred + years previous to his appearance among them, had never been annulled, + and these laws <em>protected</em> every servant in Palestine. That he saw + nothing of <em>perpetual</em> servitude is certain from the simple declaration + made by himself in John, viii, 35. "The servant abideth <em>not</em> in the + house for ever, the son abideth ever." If then He did not condemn + Jewish <em>temporary</em> servitude, this does not prove that he would not + have condemned such a monstrous system as that of AMERICAN <em>slavery</em>, + if that had existed among them. But did not Jesus condemn slavery? + Let us examine some of his precepts. "<em>Whatsoever</em> ye would that + men should do to you, do <em>ye even so to them</em>." Let every slaveholder + apply these queries to his own heart; Am <em>I</em> willing to be a slave—Am + <em>I</em> willing to see <em>my</em> husband the slave of another—Am <em>I</em> willing to see + my mother a slave, or my father, my <em>white</em> sister, or my <em>white</em> brother? + If <em>not</em>, then in holding others as slaves, I am doing what I would <em>not</em> + wish to be done to me or any relative I have; and thus have I broken + this golden rule which was given <em>me</em> to walk by. + + </p> + <p> + But some slaveholders have said, "we were never in bondage to any + man," and therefore the yoke of bondage would be insufferable to us, + but slaves are accustomed to it, their backs are fitted to the burden. + Well, I am willing to admit that you who have lived in freedom would + find slavery even more oppressive than the poor slave does, but then + you may try this question in another form—Am I willing to reduce + <em>my little child</em> to slavery? You know that <em>if it is brought up a slave</em>, it + will never know any contrast between freedom and bondage; its back + will become fitted to the burden just as the negro child's does—<em>not by + nature</em>—but by daily, violent pressure, in the same way that the head + of the Indian child becomes flattened by the boards in which it is + bound. It has been justly remarked that "<em>God never made a slave</em>," he + made man upright; his back was <em>not</em> made to carry burdens as the + slave of another, nor his neck to wear a yoke, and the <em>man</em> must be + crushed within him, before <em>his</em> back can be <em>fitted</em> to the burden of perpetual + slavery; and that his back is <em>not</em> fitted to it, is manifest by the + insurrections that so often disturb the peace and security of + slave-holding + countries. Who ever heard of a rebellion of the beasts of the + field; and why not? simply because <em>they</em> were all placed <em>under the feet + of man</em>, into whose hand they were delivered; it was originally designed + that they should serve him, therefore their necks have been + formed for the yoke, and their backs for the burden; but <em>not so with + man</em>, intellectual, immortal man! I appeal to you, my friends, as + mothers; Are you willing to enslave <em>your</em> children? You start back + with horror and indignation at such a question. But why, if slavery + is <em>no wrong</em> to those upon whom it is imposed? why, if, as has often + been said, slaves are happier than their masters, freer from the cares + and perplexities of providing for themselves and their families? why + not place <em>your children</em> in the way of being supported without your + having the trouble to provide for them, or they for themselves? Do + you not perceive that as soon as this golden rule of action is applied to + <em>yourselves</em>, that you involuntarily shrink from the test; as soon as <em>your</em> + actions are weighed in <em>this</em> balance of the sanctuary, that <em>you are found wanting?</em> + Try yourselves by another of the + Divine precepts, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Can + we love a man <em>as</em> we love <em>ourselves</em> if we do, and continue to do unto + him, what we would not wish any one to do to us? Look too, at + Christ's example, what does he say of himself, "I came <em>not</em> to be + ministered unto, but to minister." Can you for a moment imagine + the meek, and lowly, and compassionate Saviour, a <em>slaveholder</em>? do + you not shudder at this thought as much as at that of his being a <em>warrior</em>? + But why, if slavery is not sinful? + + </p> + <p> + Again, it has been said, the Apostle Paul did not condemn Slavery, + for he sent Onesimus back to Philemon. I do not think it can be + said he sent him back, for no coercion was made use of. Onesimus + was not thrown into prison and then sent back in chains to his master, + as your runaway slaves often are—this could not possibly have been + the case, because you know Paul as a Jew, was <em>bound to protect</em> the + runaway, <em>he had no right</em> to send any fugitive back to his master. + The state of the case then seems to have been this. Onesimus had + been an unprofitable servant to Philemon and left him—he afterwards + became converted under the Apostle's preaching, and seeing that he + had been to blame in his conduct, and desiring by future fidelity to + atone for past error, he wished to return, and the Apostle gave him + the letter we now have as a recommendation to Philemon, informing + him of the conversion of Onesimus, and entreating him as "Paul the + aged to receive him, <em>not</em> now as a <em>servant</em>, but <em>above</em> a servant, a + brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, + both in the flesh and in the Lord. If thou count <em>me</em> therefore as a + partner, <em>receive him as myself.</em>" This then surely cannot be forced + into a justification of the practice of returning runaway slaves back + to their masters, to be punished with cruel beatings and scourgings + as they often are. Besides the word [Greek: doulos] here translated servant, + is the same that is made use of in Matt. xviii, 27. Now it appears + that this servant owed his lord ten thousand talents; he possessed + property to a vast amount. Onesimus could not then have been a + <em>slave</em>, for slaves do not own their wives, or children; no, not even + their own bodies, much less property. But again, the servitude which + the apostle was accustomed to, must have been very different from + American slavery, for he says, "the heir (or son), as long as he is a + child, differeth <em>nothing from a servant</em>, though he be lord of all. But + is under <em>tutors</em> and governors until the time appointed of the father." + From this it appears, that the means of <em>instruction</em> were provided for + <em>servants</em> as well as children; and indeed we know it must have been + so among the Jews, because their servants were not permitted to + remain in perpetual bondage, and therefore it was absolutely necessary + they should be prepared to occupy higher stations in society + + than those of servants. Is it so at the South, my friends? Is the + daily bread of instruction provided for <em>your slaves</em>? are their minds + enlightened, and they gradually prepared to rise from the grade of + menials into that of <em>free</em>, independent members of the state? Let + your own statute book, and your own daily experience, answer these + questions. + + </p> + <p> + If this apostle sanctioned <em>slavery</em>, why did he exhort masters thus + in his epistle to the Ephesians, "and ye, masters, do the same things + unto them (i.e. perform your duties to your servants as unto Christ, + not unto me) <em>forbearing threatening</em>; knowing that your master also + is in heaven, neither is <em>there respect of persons with him</em>." And in + Colossians, "Masters give unto your servants that which is <em>just and + equal</em>, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." Let slaveholders + only <em>obey</em> these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery + would soon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to <em>threaten</em> + servants, surely he must have thought it sinful to flog and to beat + them with sticks and paddles; indeed, when delineating the character + of a bishop, he expressly names this as one feature of it, "<em>no striker</em>." + Let masters give unto their servants that which is <em>just</em> and <em>equal</em>, and + all that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. + Yes, and if they once felt they had no right to the <em>labor</em> of their servants + without pay, surely they could not think they had a right to + their wives, their children, and their own bodies. Again, how can it + be said Paul sanctioned slavery, when, as though to put this matter + beyond all doubt, in that black catalogue of sins enumerated in his + first epistle to Timothy, he mentions "<em>menstealers</em>," which word may + be translated "<em>slavedealers</em>." But you may say, we all despise slavedealers + as much as any one can; they are never admitted into genteel + or respectable society. And why not? Is it not because even you + shrink back from the idea of associating with those who make their + fortunes by trading in the bodies and souls of men, women, and children? + whose daily work it is to break human hearts, by tearing wives + from their husbands, and children from their parents? But why hold + slavedealers as despicable, if their trade is lawful and virtuous? and + why despise them more than the <em>gentlemen of fortune and standing</em> + who employ them as <em>their</em> agents? Why more than the <em>professors of + religion</em> who barter their fellow-professors to them for gold and silver? + We do not despise the land agent, or the physician, or the merchant, + and why? Simply because their professions are virtuous and honorable; + and if the trade of men-jobbers was honorable, you would not + despise them either. There is no difference in <em>principle</em>, in <em>Christian + ethics</em>, between the despised slavedealer and the <em>Christian</em> who buys + slaves from, or sells slaves to him; indeed, if slaves were not wanted + by the respectable, the wealthy, and the religious in a community, + there would be no slaves in that community, and of course no <em>slavedealers</em>. + It is then the <em>Christians</em> and the <em>honorable men</em> and <em>women</em> + of the South, who are the <em>main pillars</em> of this grand temple built to + Mammon and to Moloch. It is the <em>most enlightened</em> in every country + who are <em>most</em> to blame when any public sin is supported by public + + opinion, hence Isaiah says, "<em>When</em> the Lord hath performed his + whole work upon mount <em>Zion</em> and on <em>Jerusalem</em>, (then) I will punish + the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his + high looks." And was it not so? Open the historical records of + that age, was not Israel carried into captivity B.C. 606, Judah B.C. + 588, and the stout heart of the heathen monarchy not punished until + B.C. 536, fifty-two years <em>after</em> Judah's, and seventy years <em>after</em> + Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by Cyrus, king of Persia? + Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, "judgment must <em>begin at the + house of God</em>." Surely this would not be the case, if the <em>professors of + religion</em> were not <em>most worthy</em> of blame. + + </p> + <p> + But it may be asked, why are <em>they</em> most culpable? I will tell you, + my friends. It is because sin is imputed to us just in proportion to + the spiritual light we receive. Thus the prophet Amos says, in the + name of Jehovah, "<em>You only</em> have I known of all the families of the + earth: <em>therefore</em> I will punish you for all your iniquities." + Hear too + the doctrine of our Lord on this important subject; "The servant + who <em>knew</em> his Lord's will and <em>prepared not</em> himself, neither did according + to his will, shall be beaten with <em>many</em> stripes": and why? + "For unto whomsoever <em>much</em> is given, <em>of him</em> shall <em>much</em> be required; + and to whom men have committed <em>much</em>, of <em>him</em> they will ask the + <em>more</em>." Oh! then that the <em>Christians</em> of the south would ponder these + things in their hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which + rest <em>upon them</em> at this important crisis. + + </p> + <p> + I have thus, I think, clearly proved to you seven propositions, viz.: + First, that slavery is contrary to the declaration of our independence. + Second, that it is contrary to the first charter of human rights given + to Adam, and renewed to Noah. Third, that the fact of slavery + having been the subject of prophecy, furnishes <em>no</em> excuse whatever to + slavedealers. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal + dispensation. Fifth, that <em>slavery never</em> existed under the Jewish + dispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed + under the <em>protection of law</em>, and care taken not only to prevent all + <em>involuntary</em> servitude, but all <em>voluntary perpetual</em> bondage. Sixth, + that slavery in America reduces a <em>man</em> to a <em>thing</em>, a + "chattel personal," <em>robs him</em> of <em>all</em> his rights as a <em>human being</em>, fetters both his + mind and body, and protects the <em>master</em> in the most unnatural and + unreasonable power, whilst it <em>throws him out</em> of the protection of law. + Seventh, that slavery is contrary to the example and precepts of our + holy and merciful Redeemer, and of his apostles. + + </p> + <p> + But perhaps you will be ready to query, why appeal to <em>women</em> on + this subject? <em>We</em> do not make the laws which perpetuate slavery. + <em>No</em> legislative power is vested in <em>us</em>; <em>we</em> can do nothing to overthrow + the system, even if we wished to do so. To this I reply, I + know you do not make the laws, but I also know that <em>you are the wives + and mothers, the sisters and daughters of those who do</em>; and if you really + suppose <em>you</em> can do nothing to overthrow slavery, you are greatly + mistaken. You can do much in every way: four things I will name. + 1st. You can read on this subject. 2d. You can pray over this subject. + + 3d. You can speak on this subject. 4th. You can <em>act</em> on this + subject. I have not placed reading before praying because I regard + it more important, but because, in order to pray aright, we must understand + what we are praying for; it is only then we can "pray with + the understanding and the spirit also." + + </p> + <p> + 1. Read then on the subject of slavery. Search the Scriptures + daily, whether the things I have told you are true. Other books and + papers might be a great help to you to this investigation, but they are + not necessary, and it is hardly probable that your Committees of Vigilance + will allow you to have any other. The <em>Bible</em> then is the book + I want you to read in the spirit of inquiry, and the spirit of prayer. + Even the enemies of Abolitionists, acknowledge that their doctrines + are drawn from it. In the great mob in Boston, last autumn, when + the books and papers of the Anti-Slavery Society, were thrown out + of the windows of their office, one individual laid hold of the Bible + and was about tossing it out to the ground, when another reminded + him that it was the Bible he had in his hand. "O! <em>'tis all one</em>," + he replied, and out went the sacred volume, along with the rest. We + thank him for the acknowledgment. Yes, "<em>it is all one</em>," for our + books and papers are mostly commentaries on the Bible, and the + Declaration. Read the <em>Bible </em>then, it contains the + words of Jesus, + and they are spirit and life. Judge for yourselves + whether <em>he sanctioned</em> such a system of oppression and crime. + + </p> + <p> + 2. Pray over this subject. When you have entered into your + closets, and shut to the doors, then pray to your father, who seeth in + secret, that he would open your eyes to see whether slavery + is <em>sinful</em>, and if it is, that he would enable you to + bear a faithful, open and un-shrinking + testimony against it, and to do whatsoever your hands find + to do, leaving the consequences entirely to him, who still says to us + whenever we try to reason away duty from the fear of consequences, + "<em>What is that to thee, follow thou me</em>." Pray also for that + poor slave, that he may be kept patient and submissive under his hard lot, + until God is pleased to open the door of freedom to him without violence + or bloodshed. Pray too for the master that his heart may be softened, + and he made willing to acknowledge, as Joseph's brethren did, "Verily + we are guilty concerning our brother," before he will be compelled to + add in consequence of Divine judgment, "therefore is all this evil + come upon us." Pray also for all your brethren and sisters who are + laboring in the righteous cause of Emancipation in the Northern + States, England and the world. There is great encouragement for + prayer in these words of our Lord. "Whatsoever ye shall ask the + Father in my name, he will give it to you"—Pray then without ceasing, + in the closet and the social circle. + + </p> + <p> + 3. Speak on this subject. It is through the tongue, the pen, and + the press, that truth is principally propagated. Speak then to your + relatives, your friends, your acquaintances on the subject of slavery; + be not afraid if you are conscientiously convinced it is <em>sinful</em>, + to say so openly, but calmly, and to let your sentiments be known. If you + are served by the slaves of others, try to ameliorate their condition as + + much as possible; never aggravate their faults, and thus add fuel to + the fire of anger already kindled, in a master and mistress's bosom; + remember their extreme ignorance, and consider them as your Heavenly + Father does the <em>less</em> culpable on this account, even when they + do wrong things. Discountenance <em>all</em> cruelty to them, all + starvation, all corporal chastisement; these may brutalize and + <em>break</em> their spirits, + but will never bend them to willing, cheerful obedience. If possible, + see that they are comfortably and + <em>seasonably</em> fed, whether in the house + or the field; it is unreasonable and cruel to expect slaves to wait for + their breakfast until eleven o'clock, when they rise at five or six. Do + all you can, to induce their owners to clothe them well, and to allow + them many little indulgences which would contribute to their comfort. + Above all, try to persuade your husband, father, brothers and sons, + that <em>slavery is a crime against God and man</em>, and that it + is a great sin to keep <em>human beings</em> in such abject + ignorance; to deny them the privilege of learning to read and write. + The Catholics are universally condemned, for denying the Bible to the + common people, but, <em>slaveholders must not</em> blame them, + for <em>they</em> are doing the <em>very same + thing</em>, and for the very same reason, neither of these systems can + bear the light which bursts from the pages of that Holy Book. And + lastly, endeavour to inculcate submission on the part of the slaves, + but whilst doing this be faithful in pleading the cause of the oppressed. + + </p> + <div class="poem"> + <h3><a name="projectID3ec2855c3002e-div-d0e1541"></a></h3> + <div class="lg">"Will <em>you</em> behold unheeding,<br>Life's holiest feelings crushed,<br>Where <em>woman's</em> heart is bleeding,<br>Shall <em>woman's</em> voice be hushed?"<br><br></div> + </div> + <p> + 4. Act on this subject. Some of you <em>own</em> slaves yourselves. If + you believe slavery is <em>sinful</em>, set them at liberty, "undo + the heavy burdens and let the oppressed go free." If they wish to remain with + you, pay them wages, if not let them leave you. Should they remain + teach them, and have them taught the common branches of an English + education; they have minds and those minds, <em>ought to be improved</em>. + So precious a talent as intellect, never was given to be wrapt in a + napkin and buried in the earth. It is the <em>duty</em> of all, as + far as they can, to improve their own mental faculties, because we are + commanded to love God with <em>all our minds</em>, as well as with + all our hearts, and we commit a great sin, if we <em>forbid + or prevent</em> that cultivation of the mind in others, which would enable + them to perform this duty. + Teach your servants then to read &c., and encourage them to believe + it is their <em>duty</em> to learn, if it were only + that they might read the Bible. + + </p> + <p> + But some of you will say, we can neither free our slaves nor teach + them to read, for the laws of our state forbid it. Be not surprised + when I say such wicked laws <em>ought to be no barrier</em> in the way of + your duty, and I appeal to the Bible to prove this position. What + was the conduct of Shiphrah and Puah, when the king of Egypt + issued his cruel mandate, with regard to the Hebrew children? + "<em>They</em> feared <em>God</em>, and did <em>not</em> as + the King of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive." Did + these <em>women</em> do right + + in disobeying that monarch? "<em>Therefore</em> (says the sacred text,) + <em>God dealt well</em> with them, and made them houses" Ex. i. What + was the conduct of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, when Nebuchadnezzar + set up a golden image in the plain of Dura, and commanded all + people, nations, and languages, to fall down and worship it? "Be it + known, unto thee, (said these faithful <em>Jews</em>) O king, that + <em>we will not</em> serve thy gods, nor worship the image which thou + hast set up." Did these men <em>do right in disobeying the law</em> of + their sovereign? Let their miraculous deliverance from the burning fiery + furnace, answer; Dan. iii. What was the conduct of Daniel, when Darius + made a firm decree that no one should ask a petition of any man or God + for thirty days? Did the prophet cease to pray? No! "When Daniel + <em>knew that the writing was signed</em>, he went into his house, + and his windows being <em>open</em> towards Jerusalem, he kneeled + upon his knees three times a day, and prayed and gave thanks before his + God, as he did aforetime." + Did Daniel do right thus to <em>break</em> the law of his king? Let + his wonderful deliverance out of the mouths of the lions answer; + Dan. vii. Look, too, at the Apostles Peter and John. When the + rulers of the Jews, "<em>commanded them not</em> to speak at all, + nor teach in the name of Jesus," what did they say? "Whether it be right in + the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge + ye." And what did they do? "They spake the word of God with + boldness, and with great power gave the Apostles witness of the + <em>resurrection</em> of the Lord Jesus;" although <em>this</em> + was the very doctrine, for the preaching of which, they had just been + cast into prison, and further threatened. Did these men do right? I leave + <em>you</em> to answer, + who now enjoy the benefits of their labors and sufferings, in that + Gospel they dared to preach when positively commanded + <em>not to teach any more</em> in the name of Jesus; Acts iv. + + </p> + <p> + But some of you may say, if we do free our slaves, they will be + taken up and sold, therefore there will be no use in doing it. Peter + and John might just as well have said, we will not preach the gospel, + for if we do, we shall be taken up and put in prison, therefore there + will be no use in our preaching. <em>Consequences</em>, my friends, + belong no more to <em>you</em>, than they did to these apostles. + Duty is ours and events are God's. If you think slavery is sinful, + all <em>you</em> have to do is to set + your slaves at liberty, do all you can to protect them, and in humble + faith and fervent prayer, commend them to your common Father. + He can take care of them; but if for wise purposes he sees fit to + allow them to be sold, this will afford you an opportunity of testifying + openly, wherever you go, against the crime of <em>manstealing</em>. Such + an act will be <em>clear robbery</em>, and if exposed, might, under + the Divine direction, do the cause of Emancipation more good, than any thing + that could happen, for, "He makes even the wrath of man to praise + him, and the remainder of wrath he will restrain." + + </p> + <p> + I know that this doctrine of obeying <em>God</em>, rather than man, + will be considered as dangerous, and heretical by many, but I am not afraid + openly to avow it, because it is the doctrine of the Bible; but I would + not be understood to advocate resistance to any law however oppressive, + + if, in obeying it, I was not obliged to commit <em>sin</em>. If for + instance, there was a law, which imposed imprisonment or a fine + upon me if I manumitted a slave, I would on no account resist that + law, I would set the slave free, and then go to prison or pay the fine. + If a law commands me to <em>sin I will break it</em>; if it calls + me to <em>suffer</em>, I will let it take its course + <em>unresistingly</em>. The doctrine of blind obedience + and unqualified submission to <em>any human</em> power, + whether civil or ecclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism, and ought + to have no place among Republicans and Christians. + + </p> + <p> + But you will perhaps say, such a course of conduct would inevitably + expose us to great suffering. Yes! my christian friends, I believe + it would, but this will <em>not</em> excuse you or any one else for the + neglect of <em>duty</em>. If Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, and Reformers + had not been willing to suffer for the truth's sake, where would the + world have been now? If they had said, we cannot speak the truth, + we cannot do what we believe is right, because the <em>laws of our country + or public opinion are against us</em>, where would our holy religion have + been now? The Prophets were stoned, imprisoned, and killed by + the Jews. And why? Because they exposed and openly rebuked + public sins; they opposed public opinion; had they held their peace, + they all might have lived in ease and died in favor with a wicked generation. + Why were the Apostles persecuted from city to city, stoned, + incarcerated, beaten, and crucified? Because they dared to <em>speak the + truth</em>; to tell the Jews, boldly and fearlessly, + that <em>they</em> were the <em>murderers</em> + of the Lord of Glory, and that, however great a stumbling-block + the Cross might be to them, there was no other name given + under heaven by which men could be saved, but the name of Jesus. + Because they declared, even at Athens, the seat of learning and refinement, + the self-evident truth, that "they be no gods that are made + with men's hands," and exposed to the Grecians the foolishness of + worldly wisdom, and the impossibility of salvation but through Christ, + whom they despised on account of the ignominious death he died. + Because at Rome, the proud mistress of the world, they thundered + out the terrors of the law upon that idolatrous, war-making, and + slave-holding community. Why were the martyrs stretched upon the + rack, gibbetted and burnt, the scorn and diversion of a Nero, whilst + their tarred and burning bodies sent up a light which illuminated the + Roman capital? Why were the Waldenses hunted like wild beasts + upon the mountains of Piedmont, and slain with the sword of the + Duke of Savoy and the proud monarch of France? Why were the + Presbyterians chased like the partridge over the highlands of Scotland—the + Methodists pumped, and stoned, and pelted with rotten + eggs—the Quakers incarcerated in filthy prisons, beaten, whipped at + the cart's tail, banished and hung? Because they dared to <em>speak</em> + the <em>truth</em>, to <em>break</em> the unrighteous <em>laws</em> of their country, and chose rather + to suffer affliction with the people of God, "not accepting deliverance," + even under the gallows. Why were Luther and Calvin persecuted + and excommunicated, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer burnt? + Because they fearlessly proclaimed the truth, though that truth was + + contrary to public opinion, and the authority of Ecclesiastical councils + and conventions. Now all this vast amount of human suffering + might have been saved. All these Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, + and Reformers, might have lived and died in peace with all men, but + following the example of their great pattern, "they despised the + shame, endured the cross, and are now set down on the right hand + of the throne of God," having received the glorious welcome of "well + <em>done</em> good and faithful servants, enter ye into the joy + of your Lord." + + </p> + <p> + But you may say we are <em>women</em>, how can <em>our</em> hearts + endure persecution? And why not? Have not <em>women</em> stood up in + all the dignity and strength of moral courage to be the leaders of the + people, and to bear a faithful testimony for the truth whenever the + providence of God has called them to do so? Are there no + <em>women</em> in that noble + army of martyrs who are now singing the song of Moses and the + Lamb? Who led out the women of Israel from the house of bondage, + striking the timbrel, and singing the song of deliverance on the + banks of that sea whose waters stood up like walls of crystal to open + a passage for their escape? It was a <em>woman</em>; Miriam, the + prophetess, the sister of Moses and Aaron. Who went up with Barak to + Kadesh to fight against Jabin, King of Canaan, into whose hand + Israel had been sold because of their iniquities? It was a <em>woman!</em> + Deborah the wife of Lapidoth, the judge, as well as the prophetess + of that backsliding people; Judges iv, 9. Into whose hands was + Sisera, the captain of Jabin's host delivered? Into the hand of a + <em>woman</em>. Jael the wife of Heber! Judges vi, 21. Who dared to + <em>speak the truth</em> concerning those judgments which were coming upon + Judea, when Josiah, alarmed at finding that his people "had not kept + the word of the Lord to do after all that was written in the book of + the Law," sent to enquire of the Lord concerning these things? It + was a <em>woman</em>. Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum; 2, + Chron. xxxiv, 22. Who was chosen to deliver the whole Jewish + nation from that murderous decree of Persia's King, which wicked + Haman had obtained by calumny and fraud? It was a <em>woman</em>; + Esther the Queen; yes, weak and trembling <em>woman</em> was the + instrument appointed by God, to reverse the bloody mandate of the eastern + monarch, and save the <em>whole visible church</em> from destruction. What + human voice first proclaimed to Mary that she should be the mother + of our Lord? It was a <em>woman!</em> Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias; + Luke i, 42, 43. Who united with the good old Simeon in giving + thanks publicly in the temple, when the child, Jesus, was presented + there by his parents, "and spake of him to all them that looked for + redemption in Jerusalem?" It was a <em>woman!</em> Anna the prophetess. + Who first proclaimed Christ as the true Messiah in the streets of Samaria, + once the capital of the ten tribes? It was a <em>woman!</em> Who + ministered to the Son of God whilst on earth, a despised and persecuted + Reformer, in the humble garb of a carpenter? They were + <em>women!</em> Who followed the rejected King of Israel, as his fainting + footsteps trod the road to Calvary? "A great company of people + and of <em>women</em>;" and it is remarkable that to + <em>them alone</em>, he turned + + and addressed the pathetic language, "Daughters of Jerusalem, + weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and your children." Ah! + who sent unto the Roman Governor when he was set down on the + judgment seat, saying unto him, "Have thou nothing to do with that + just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because + of him?" It was a <em>woman</em>! the wife of Pilate. Although + "<em>he knew</em> that for envy the Jews had delivered Christ," yet + <em>he</em> consented + to surrender the Son of God into the hands of a brutal soldiery, + after having himself scourged his naked body. Had the <em>wife</em> of + Pilate sat upon that judgment seat, what would have been the result + of the trial of this "just person?" + + </p> + <p> + And who last hung round the cross of Jesus on the mountain + of Golgotha? Who first visited the sepulchre early in the morning + on the first day of the week, carrying sweet spices to embalm his + precious body, not knowing that it was incorruptible and could not + be holden by the bands of death? These were <em>women</em>! To whom + did he <em>first</em> appear after his resurrection? It was to + a <em>woman</em>! Mary + Magdalene; Mark xvi, 9. Who gathered with the apostles to wait + at Jerusalem, in prayer and supplication, for "the promise of the + Father;" the spiritual blessing of the Great High Priest of his + Church, who had entered, <em>not</em> into the splendid temple of Solomon, + there to offer the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the smoking censer + upon the golden altar, but into Heaven itself, there to present his + intercessions, + after having "given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice + to God for a sweet smelling savor?" <em>Women</em> were among that + holy company; Acts i, 14. And did <em>women</em> wait in vain? Did + those who had ministered to his necessities, followed in his train, and + wept at his crucifixion, wait in vain? No! No! Did the cloven + tongues of fire descend upon the heads of <em>women</em> as well as men? + Yes, my friends, "it sat upon <em>each one of them</em>;" Acts ii, 3. + <em>women</em> as well as men were to be living stones in the temple + of grace, and therefore <em>their</em> heads were consecrated by + the descent of the Holy Ghost as well as those of men. + Were <em>women</em> recognized as + fellow laborers in the gospel field? They were! Paul says in his + epistle to the Philippians, "help those <em>women</em> who labored + with me, in the gospel;" Phil. iv, 3. + + </p> + <p> + But this is not all. Roman <em>women</em> were burnt at the stake, + <em>their</em> + delicate limbs were torn joint from joint by the ferocious beasts of the + Amphitheatre, and tossed by the wild bull in his fury, for the diversion + of that idolatrous, warlike, and slaveholding people. Yes, + <em>women</em> suffered + under the ten persecutions of heathen Rome, with the most unshrinking + constancy and fortitude; not all the entreaties of friends, + nor the claims of new born infancy, nor the cruel threats of enemies + could make <em>them</em> sprinkle one grain of incense upon the altars + of Roman idols. Come now with me to the beautiful valleys of Piedmont. + Whose blood stains the green sward, and decks the wild flowers with + colors not their own, and smokes on the sword of persecuting France? + It is <em>woman's</em>, as well as man's? Yes, <em>women</em> were + accounted as sheep + for the slaughter, and were cut down as the tender saplings of the wood. + + </p> + <p> + But time would fail me, to tell of all those hundreds and thousands + of <em>women</em>, who perished in the Low countries of Holland, + when Alva's + sword of vengeance was unsheathed against the Protestants, when + the Catholic Inquisitions of Europe became the merciless executioners + of vindictive wrath, upon those who dared to worship God, instead + of bowing down in unholy adoration before "my Lord God the + <em>Pope</em>," + and when England, too, burnt her Ann Ascoes at the stake of martyrdom. + Suffice it to say, that the Church, after having been driven from + Judea to Rome, and from Rome to Piedmont, and from Piedmont to + England, and from England to Holland, at last stretched her fainting + wings over the dark bosom of the Atlantic, and found on the shores + of a great wilderness, a refuge from tyranny and oppression—as she + thought, but <em>even here</em>, (the warm blush of shame mantles + my cheek as I write it,) <em>even here, woman</em> was beaten and + banished, imprisoned, and hung upon the gallows, a trophy to the Cross. + + </p> + <p> + And what, I would ask in conclusion, have <em>women</em> done + for the great and glorious cause of Emancipation? Who wrote that pamphlet + which moved the heart of Wilberforce to pray over the wrongs, and his + tongue to plead the cause of the oppressed African? It was + a <em>woman</em>, Elizabeth Heyrick. Who labored assiduously to keep + the sufferings of the slave continually before the British public? They were + <em>women</em>. + And how did they do it? By their needles, paint brushes and pens, + by speaking the truth, and petitioning Parliament for the abolition of + slavery. And what was the effect of their labors? Read it in the + Emancipation bill of Great Britain. Read it, in the present state of + her West India Colonies. Read it, in the impulse which has been + given to the cause of freedom, in the United States of America. + Have English women then done so much for the negro, and shall + American women do nothing? Oh no! Already are there sixty female + Anti-Slavery Societies in operation. These are doing just what the + English women did, telling the story of the colored man's wrongs, + praying for his deliverance, and presenting his kneeling image constantly + before the public eye on bags and needle-books, card-racks, + pen-wipers, pin-cushions, &c. Even the children of the north are inscribing + on their handy work, "May the points of our needles prick + the slaveholder's conscience." Some of the reports of these Societies + exhibit not only considerable talent, but a deep sense of religious + duty, and a determination to persevere through evil as well as good + report, until every scourge, and every shackle, is buried under the + feet of the manumitted slave. + + </p> + <p> + The Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society of Boston was called last fall, to a + severe trial of their faith and constancy. They were mobbed by "the + gentlemen of property and standing," in that city at their anniversary + meeting, and their lives were jeoparded by an infuriated crowd; but + their conduct on that occasion did credit to our sex, and affords a full + assurance that they will <em>never</em> abandon the cause of the + slave. The pamphlet, Right and Wrong in Boston, issued by them in which a + particular account is given of that "mob of broad cloth in broad day," + does equal credit to the head and the heart of her who wrote it. I + + wish my Southern sisters could read it; they would then understand + that the women of the North have engaged in this work from a sense + of <em>religious duty</em>, and that nothing will ever induce them + to take their hands from it until it is fully accomplished. They feel no + hostility to you, no bitterness or wrath; they rather sympathize in your + trials and difficulties; but they well know that the first thing to be done to + help you, is to pour in the light of truth on your minds, to urge you + to reflect on, and pray over the subject. This is all <em>they</em> can + do for you, <em>you</em> must work out your own deliverance with fear + and trembling, and with the direction and blessing of God, + <em>you can do it</em>. Northern + women may labor to produce a correct public opinion at the North, + but if Southern women sit down in listless indifference and criminal + idleness, public opinion cannot be rectified and purified at the South. + It is manifest to every reflecting mind, that slavery must be abolished; + the era in which we live, and the light which is overspreading + the whole world on this subject, clearly show that the time cannot be + distant when it will be done. Now there are only two ways in which + it can be effected, by moral power or physical force, and it is for + <em>you</em> to choose which of these you prefer. Slavery always + has, and always will produce insurrections wherever it exists, because + it is a violation of the natural order of things, and no human power + can much longer perpetuate it. The opposers of abolitionists fully + believe this; one of them remarked to me not long since, there is no + doubt there will be a most terrible overturning at the South in a + few years, such cruelty and wrong, must be visited with Divine + vengeance soon. Abolitionists believe, too, that this must inevitably + be the case, if you do not + repent, and they are not willing to leave you to perish without entreating + you, to save yourselves from destruction; well may they say + with the apostle, "am I then your enemy because I tell you the truth," + and warn you to flee from impending judgments. + + </p> + <p> + But why, my dear friends, have I thus been endeavoring to lead you + through the history of more than three thousand years, and to point + you to that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before, "from + works to rewards?" Have I been seeking to magnify the sufferings, + and exalt the character of woman, that she "might have praise of + men?" No! no! my object has been to arouse <em>you</em>, as the wives + and mothers, the daughters and sisters, of the South, to a sense of + your duty as <em>women</em>, and as Christian women, on that great + subject, which has already shaken our country, from the St. Lawrence and + the lakes, to the Gulf of Mexico, and from the Mississippi to the + shores of the Atlantic; <em>and will continue mightily to shake it</em>, + until the polluted temple of slavery fall and crumble into ruin. I would say + unto each one of you, "what meanest thou, O sleeper! arise and call + upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us that we perish + not." Perceive you not that dark cloud of vengeance which hangs + over our boasting Republic? Saw you not the lightnings of Heaven's + wrath, in the flame which leaped from the Indian's torch to the + roof of yonder dwelling, and lighted with its horrid glare the darkness + of midnight? Heard you not the thunders of Divine anger, as the distant + + roar of the cannon came rolling onward, from the Texian country, + where Protestant American Rebels are fighting with Mexican + Republicans—for what? For the re-establishment of <em>slavery</em>; yes! + of American slavery in the bosom of a Catholic Republic, where that + system of robbery, violence, and wrong, had been legally abolished + for twelve years. Yes! citizens of the United States, after plundering + Mexico of her land, are now engaged in deadly conflict, for the + privilege of fastening chains, and collars, and manacles—upon whom? + upon the subjects of some foreign prince? No! upon native born + American Republican citizens, although the fathers of these very men + declared to the whole world, while struggling to free themselves from + the three penny taxes of an English king, that they believed it to be + a <em>self-evident</em> truth that <em>all men</em> were created + equal, and had an <em>unalienable right to liberty</em>. + + </p> + <p> + Well may the poet exclaim in bitter sarcasm, + + </p> + <div class="poem"> + <h3><a name="projectID3ec2855c3002e-div-d0e1920"></a></h3> + <div class="lg">"The fustian flag that proudly waves<br>In solemn mockery <em>o'er a land of slaves</em>."<br><br></div> + </div> + <p> + Can you not, my friends, understand the signs of the times; do you + not see the sword of retributive justice hanging over the South, or + are you still slumbering at your posts?—Are there no Shiphrahs, no + Puahs among you, who will dare in Christian firmness and Christian + meekness, to refuse to obey the <em>wicked laws</em> which require + <em>woman to enslave, to degrade and to brutalize woman?</em> Are + there no Miriams, who would rejoice to lead out the captive daughters of + the Southern States to liberty and light? Are there no Huldahs there + who will dare to <em>speak the truth</em> concerning the sins of the + people and those judgments, which it requires no prophet's eye to see, + must follow if repentance is not speedily sought? Is there no Esther + among you who will plead for the poor devoted slave? Read the history of this + Persian queen, it is full of instruction; she at first refused to plead + for the Jews; but, hear the words of Mordecai, "Think not within + thyself, that <em>thou</em> shalt escape in the king's house more + than all the Jews, for <em>if thou altogether holdest thy peace at + this time</em>, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to + the Jews from another place: but <em>thou and thy father's house + shall be destroyed.</em>" Listen, too, to her magnanimous reply to + this powerful appeal; "<em>I will go</em> in unto + the king, which is not according to law, and if I perish. I perish." + Yes! if there were but <em>one</em> Esther at the South, she + <em>might</em> save her country from ruin; but let the Christian + women there arise, as the Christian women of Great Britain did, in + the majesty of moral power, and that salvation is certain. Let them + embody themselves in societies, + and send petitions up to their different legislatures, entreating + their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons, to abolish the institution + of slavery; no longer to subject <em>woman</em> to + the scourge and the chain, + to mental darkness and moral degradation; no longer to tear husbands + from their wives, and children from their parents; no longer to make + men, women, and children, work <em>without wages;</em> no longer to make + their lives bitter in hard bondage; no longer to reduce <em>American + citizens</em> + to the abject condition of <em>slaves</em>, of "chattels personal;" + no longer to barter the <em>image of God</em> in human shambles for + corruptible things such as silver and gold. + + </p> + <p> + The <em>women of the South can overthrow</em> this horrible system + of oppression and cruelty, licentiousness and wrong. Such appeals to + your legislatures would be irresistible, for there is something in the + heart of man which <em>will bend under moral suasion</em>. There is + a swift witness for truth in his bosom, which <em>will respond to + truth</em> when it is uttered with calmness and dignity. If you could + obtain but six signatures to such a petition in only one state, I would + say, send up that petition, and be not in the least discouraged by the + scoffs and jeers of the heartless, or the resolution of the house + to lay it on the table. It will be a great thing if the subject can + be introduced into your + legislatures in any way, even by <em>women</em>, and + <em>they</em> will be the most + likely to introduce it there in the best possible manner, as a matter + of <em>morals</em> and <em>religion</em>, not of expediency or + politics. You may + petition, too, the different, ecclesiastical bodies of the slave states. + Slavery must be attacked with the whole power of truth and the + sword of the spirit. You must take it up on <em>Christian</em> ground, + and fight against it with Christian weapons, whilst your feet are shod with + the preparation of the gospel of peace. And <em>you are now</em> loudly + called upon by the cries of the widow and the orphan, to arise and + gird yourselves for this great moral conflict, with the whole armour + of righteousness upon the right hand and on the left. + + </p> + <p> + There is every encouragement for you to labor and pray, my + friends, because the abolition of slavery as well as its existence, has + been the theme of prophecy. "Ethiopia (says the Psalmist) shall + stretch forth her hands unto God." And is she not now doing so? + Are not the Christian negroes of the south lifting their hands in prayer + for deliverance, just as the Israelites did when their redemption was + drawing nigh? Are they not sighing and crying by reason of the + hard bondage? And think you, that He, of whom it was said, "and + God heard their groaning, and their cry came up unto him by reason + of the hard bondage," think you that his ear is heavy that he cannot + <em>now</em> hear the cries of his suffering children? Or that He + who raised up a Moses, an Aaron, and a Miriam, to bring them up out of the + land of Egypt from the house of bondage, cannot now, with a high + hand and a stretched out arm, rid the poor negroes out of the hands + of their masters? Surely you believe that his arm is <em>not</em> + shortened that he cannot save. And would not such a work of mercy redound + to his glory? But another string of the harp of prophecy vibrates to + the song of deliverance: "But they shall sit every man under his + vine, and under his fig-tree, and <em>none shall make them afraid</em>; + for the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it." The <em>slave</em> + never can do this as long as he is a <em>slave</em>; whilst he is a + "chattel personal" he can own <em>no</em> property; but the time + <em>is to come</em> when <em>every</em> man is to + sit under <em>his own</em> vine and <em>his own</em> + fig-tree, and no domineering driver, + or irresponsible master, or irascible mistress, shall make him afraid + of the chain or the whip. Hear, too, the sweet tones of another + + string: "Many shall run to and fro, and <em>knowledge</em> shall + be increased." Slavery is an insurmountable barrier to the + increase of knowledge in every community where it exists; + <em>slavery, then, must be + abolished before</em> this prediction can be fulfiled. + The last chord I shall touch, will be this, "They shall + <em>not</em> hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain." + + </p> + <p><em>Slavery, then, must be overthrown before</em> the prophecies + can be accomplished, + but how are they to be fulfiled? Will the wheels of the + millennial car be rolled onward by miraculous power? No! God + designs to confer this holy privilege upon <em>man</em>; + it is through <em>his</em> + instrumentality that the great and glorious work of reforming + the world + is to be done. And see you not how the mighty engine of <em>moral + power</em> + is dragging in its rear the Bible and peace societies, anti-slavery + and temperance, sabbath schools, moral reform, and missions? + or to adopt another figure, do not these seven philanthropic + associations compose the beautiful tints in that bow of promise + which spans + the arch of our moral heaven? Who does not believe, that if these + societies were broken up, their constitutions burnt, and the vast + machinery with which they are laboring to regenerate mankind was + stopped, that the black clouds of vengeance would soon burst over + our world, and every city would witness the fate of the devoted cities + of the plain? Each one of these societies is walking abroad through + the earth scattering the seeds of truth over the wide field of our + world, not with the hundred hands of a Briareus, but with a hundred + thousand. + + </p> + <p> + Another encouragement for you to labor, my friends, is, that you + will have the prayers and co-operation of English and Northern + philanthropists. You will never bend your knees in supplication + at the throne of grace for the overthrow of slavery, without + meeting there the spirits of other Christians, who will mingle + their voices with yours, + as the morning or evening sacrifice ascends to God. Yes, the spirit + of prayer and of supplication has been poured out upon many, many + hearts; there are wrestling Jacobs who will not let go of the + prophetic promises of deliverance for the captive, and the + opening of prison doors + to them that are bound. There are Pauls who are saying, in reference + to this subject, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" There are + Marys sitting in the house now, who are ready to arise and go forth + is this work as soon as the message is brought, "the master is come + and calleth for thee." And there are Marthas, too, who have already + gone out to meet Jesus, as he bends his footsteps to their brother's + grave, and weeps, <em>not</em> over the lifeless body of + Lazarus bound hand + and foot in grave-clothes, but over the politically and intellectually + lifeless slave, bound hand and foot in the iron chains of + oppression and ignorance. Some may be ready to say, as Martha did, + who seemed to expect nothing but sympathy from Jesus, "Lord, by + this time he + stinketh, for he hath been dead four days." She thought it useless + to remove the stone and expose the loathsome body of her brother; + she could not believe that so great a miracle could be wrought, as to + raise <em>that putrefied body</em> into life; but "Jesus said, + take <em>ye</em> away the + + stone;" and when <em>they</em> had taken away the stone + where the dead was + laid, and uncovered the body of Lazarus, then it was that "Jesus + lifted up his eyes and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard + me," &c. "And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud voice, + Lazarus, come forth." Yes, some may be ready to say of the + colored race, how can <em>they</em> ever be raised politically + and intellectually, + they have been dead four hundred years? But <em>we</em> + have <em>nothing</em> + to do with <em>how</em> this is to be done; + <em>our business</em> is to take away the + stone which has covered up the dead body of our brother, to expose + the putrid carcass, to show <em>how</em> that body has been + bound with the + grave-clothes of heathen ignorance, and his face with the napkin of + prejudice, and having done all it was our duty to do, to stand by + the negro's grave, in humble faith and holy hope, waiting to hear + the life-giving command of "Lazarus, come forth." This is just + what Anti-Slavery Societies are doing; they are taking away the + stone from the mouth of the tomb of slavery, where lies the putrid + carcass of our brother. They want the pure light of heaven to shine + into that dark and gloomy cave; they want all men to + see <em>how</em> that + dead body has been bound, <em>how</em> that face has + been wrapped in the + <em>napkin of prejudice</em>; and shall they wait beside that + grave in vain? + Is not Jesus still the resurrection and the life? Did He come + to proclaim + liberty to the captive, and the opening of prison doors to them + that are bound, in vain? Did He promise to give beauty for ashes, + the oil of joy for mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit + of heaviness unto them that mourn in Zion, and will He refuse to + beautify the mind, anoint the head, and throw around the captive + negro the mantle of praise for that spirit of heaviness which has so + long bound him down to the ground? Or shall we not rather say + with the prophet, "the zeal of the Lord of Hosts <em>will</em> + perform this?" + Yes, his promises are sure, and amen in Christ Jesus, that he will + assemble her that halteth, and gather her that is driven out, and her + that is afflicted. + + </p> + <p> + But I will now say a few words on the subject of Abolitionism. + Doubtless you have all heard Anti-Slavery Societies denounced as + insurrectionary and mischievous, fanatical and dangerous. It has + been said they publish the most abominable untruths, and that they + are endeavoring to excite rebellions at the South. Have you believed + these reports, my friends? have <em>you</em> also been deceived + by these false + assertions? Listen to me, then, whilst I endeavor to wipe from the + fair character of Abolitionism such unfounded accusations. You + know that <em>I</em> am a Southerner; you know that my dearest + relatives + are now in a slave State. Can you for a moment believe I would + prove so recreant to the feelings of a daughter and a sister, as + to join a society which was seeking to overthrow slavery by + falsehood, bloodshed, + and murder? I appeal to you who have known and loved me + in days that are passed, can <em>you</em> believe it? No! my + friends. As a + Carolinian, I was peculiarly jealous of any movements on this + subject; + and before I would join an Anti-Slavery Society, I took the + precaution + of becoming acquainted with some of the leading Abolitionists, + + of reading their publications and attending their meetings, at which I + heard addresses both from colored and white men; and it was not + until I was fully convinced that their principles were + <em>entirely pacific</em>, and their efforts + <em>only moral</em>, that I gave my name as a member to the + Female Anti-Slavery Society of Philadelphia. Since that time, I + have regularly taken the Liberator, and read many Anti-Slavery + pamphlets and papers and books, and can assure you + I <em>never</em> have + seen a single insurrectionary paragraph, and never read any account + of cruelty which I could not believe. Southerners may deny the + truth of these accounts, but why do they not <em>prove</em> them + to be false. + Their violent expressions of horror at such accounts being believed, + <em>may</em> deceive some, but they cannot deceive + <em>me</em>, for I lived too long + in the midst of slavery, not to know what slavery is. + When <em>I</em> speak + of this system, "I speak that I do know," and I am not at all afraid + to assert, that Anti-Slavery publications have <em>not</em> + overdrawn the monstrous features of slavery at all. And many a + Southerner <em>knows</em> this + as well as I do. A lady in North Carolina remarked to a friend of + mine, about eighteen months since, "Northerners know nothing at all + about slavery; they think it is perpetual bondage only; but of the + <em>depth of degradation</em> that word involves, they have + no conception; if they had, <em>they would never cease</em> + their efforts until so <em>horrible</em> a system + was overthrown." She did not know how faithfully some Northern + men and Northern women had studied this subject; how diligently + they had searched out the cause of "him who had none to help him," + and how fearlessly they had told the story of the negro's wrongs. + Yes, Northerners know <em>every</em> thing about slavery now. + This monster of iniquity has been unveiled to the world, her + frightful features unmasked, + and soon, very soon will she be regarded with no more + complacency by the American republic than is the idol of Juggernaut, + rolling its bloody wheels over the crushed bodies of its prostrate + Victims. + + </p> + <p> + But you will probably ask, if Anti-Slavery societies are not + insurrectionary, + why do Northerners tell us they are? Why, I would ask + you in return, did Northern senators and Northern representatives + give their votes, at the last sitting of congress, to the admission of + Arkansas Territory as a state? Take those men, one by one, and + ask them in their parlours, do you <em>approve of slavery?</em> + ask them on + <em>Northern</em> ground, where they will speak the truth, + and I doubt not <em>every man</em> of them will tell you, + <em>no!</em> Why then, I ask, did <em>they</em> give + their votes to enlarge the mouth of that grave which has already + destroyed its tens of thousands? All our enemies tell + <em>us</em> they are as + much anti-slavery as we are. Yes, my friends, thousands who are + helping you to bind the fetters of slavery on the negro, despise + you in their hearts for doing it; they rejoice that such an + institution has not been entailed upon them. Why then, I would + ask, do <em>they</em> lend you + their help? I will tell you, "they love + <em>the praise of men more</em> than + the praise of God." The Abolition cause has not yet become so + popular as to induce them to believe, that by advocating it + in congress, + they shall sit still more securely in their seats there, and like + + the <em>chief rulers</em> in the days of our Saviour, though + many believed on him, yet they did <em>not</em> confess him, + lest they should <em>be put out of the + synagogue</em>; John xii, 42, 43. Or perhaps like Pilate, thinking + they could prevail nothing, and fearing a tumult, they determined + to release + Barabbas and surrender the just man, the poor innocent slave to be + stripped of his rights and scourged. In vain will such men try to + wash their hands, and say, with the Roman governor, "I am innocent + of the blood of this just person." Northern American statesmen + are no more innocent of the crime of slavery, than Pilate was of the + murder of Jesus, or Saul of that of Stephen. These are high charges, + but I appeal to <em>their hearts</em>; I appeal to public + opinion ten years + from now. Slavery then is a national sin. + + </p> + <p> + But you will say, a great many other Northerners tell us so, who + can have no political motives. The interests of the North, you must + know, my friends, are very closely combined with those of the South. + The Northern merchants and manufacturers are making + <em>their</em> fortunes out of the + <em>produce of slave labor</em>; the grocer is selling + your rice and sugar; how then can these men bear a testimony + against slavery + without condemning themselves? But there is another reason, the + North is most dreadfully afraid of Amalgamation. She is alarmed + at the very idea of a thing so monstrous, as she thinks. And lest + this consequence <em>might</em> flow from emancipation, + she is determined to resist all efforts at emancipation without + expatriation. It is not because + <em>she approves of slavery</em>, or believes it to be + "the corner stone of our republic," for she is as + much <em>anti-slavery</em> as we are; but amalgamation is + too horrible to think of. Now I would ask <em>you</em>, is + it right, is it generous, to refuse the colored people + in this country the advantages of education and the privilege, + or rather the <em>right</em>, to follow + honest trades and callings merely because they are colored? + The same prejudice exists here against our colored brethren that + existed against the Gentiles in Judea. Great numbers cannot bear + the idea of equality, and fearing lest, if they had the same + advantages we enjoy, they would become as intelligent, as moral, + as religious, + and as respectable and wealthy, they are determined to keep them as + low as they possibly can. Is this doing as they would be done by? + Is this loving their neighbor <em>as themselves</em>? + Oh! that <em>such</em> opposers + of Abolitionism would put their souls in the stead of the free colored + man's and obey the apostolic injunction, to "remember them that are + in bonds <em>as bound with them</em>." I will leave you to + judge whether the + fear of amalgamation ought to induce men to oppose anti-slavery + efforts, when <em>they</em> believe <em>slavery</em> + to be <em>sinful</em>. Prejudice against + color, is the most powerful enemy we have to fight with at the North. + + </p> + <p> + You need not be surprised, then, at all, at what is said <em>against</em> + Abolitionists by the North, for they are wielding a two-edged sword, + which even here, cuts through the <em>cords of caste</em>, on the one side, + and the <em>bonds of interest</em> on the other. They are only sharing the + fate of other reformers, abused and reviled whilst they are in the minority; + but they are neither angry nor discouraged by the invective + which has been heaped upon them by slaveholders at the South and + + their apologists at the North. They know that when George Fox + and William Edmundson were laboring in behalf of the negroes in + the West Indies in 1671 that the very <em>same</em> slanders were propogated + against them, which are <em>now</em> circulated against Abolitionists. Although + it was well known that Fox was the founder of a religious + sect which repudiated <em>all</em> war, and <em>all</em> violence, + yet <em>even he</em> was accused + of "endeavoring to excite the slaves to insurrection and of + teaching the negroes to cut their master's throats." And these two + men who had their feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of + Peace, were actually compelled to draw up a formal declaration that + <em>they were not</em> trying to raise a rebellion in Barbadoes. It is also + worthy of remark that these Reformers did not at this time see the + necessity of emancipation under seven years, and their principal + efforts were exerted to persuade the planters of the necessity of instructing + their slaves; but the slaveholder saw then, just what the + slaveholder sees now, that an <em>enlightened</em> population + <em>never</em> can be a + <em>slave</em> population, and therefore they passed a law, that negroes should + not even attend the meetings of Friends. Abolitionists know that the + life of Clarkson was sought by slavetraders; and that even Wilberforce + was denounced on the floor of Parliament as a fanatic and a + hypocrite by the present King of England, the very man who, in 1834, + set his seal to that instrument which burst the fetters of eight hundred + thousand slaves in his West India colonies. They know that the + first Quaker who bore a <em>faithful</em> testimony against the sin of slavery + was cut off from religious fellowship with that society. That Quaker + was a <em>woman</em>. On her deathbed she sent for the committee who dealt + with her—she told them, the near approach of death had not altered + her sentiments on the subject of slavery and waving her hand towards + a very fertile and beautiful portion of country which lay stretched before + her window, she said with great solemnity, "Friends, the time + will come when there will not be friends enough in all this district to + hold one meeting for worship, and this garden will be turned into a + wilderness." + + </p> + <p> + The aged friend, who with tears in his eyes, related this interesting + circumstance to me, remarked, that at that time there were seven + meetings of friends in that part of Virginia, but that when he was + there ten years ago, not a single meeting was held, and the country + was literally a desolation. Soon after her decease, John Woolman + began his labors in our society, and instead of disowning a member + for testifying <em>against</em> slavery, they have for fifty-two + years positively forbidden their members to hold slaves. + + </p> + <p> + Abolitionists understand the slaveholding spirit too well to be surprised + at any thing that has yet happened at the South or the North; + they know that the greater the sin is, which is exposed, the more violent + will be the efforts to blacken the character and impugn the motives + of those who are engaged in bringing to light the hidden things + of darkness. They understand the work of Reform too well to be + driven back by the furious waves of opposition, which are only foaming + out their own shame. They have stood "the world's dread + + laugh," when only twelve men formed the first Anti-Slavery Society + in Boston in 1831. They have faced and refuted the calumnies of + their enemies, and proved themselves to be emphatically <em>peace men</em> by + <em>never resisting</em> the violence of mobs, even when driven by them from + the temple of God, and dragged by an infuriated crowd through the + streets of the emporium of New-England, or subjected by <em>slaveholders</em> + to the pain of corporal punishment. "None of these things move + them;" and, by the grace of God, they are determined to persevere + in this work of faith and labor of love: they mean to pray, and + preach, and write, and print, until slavery is completely overthrown, + until Babylon is taken up and cast into the sea, to "be found no + more at all." They mean to petition Congress year after year, until + the seat of our government is cleansed from the sinful traffic of + "slaves and the souls of men." Although that august assembly may + be like the unjust judge who "feared not God neither regarded man," + yet it must yield just as he did, from the power of importunity. Like + the unjust judge, Congress <em>must</em> redress the wrongs of the widow, + lest by the continual coming up of petitions, it be wearied. This will + be striking the dagger into the very heart of the monster, and once + 'tis done, he must soon expire. + + </p> + <p> + Abolitionists have been accused of abusing their Southern brethren. + Did the prophet Isaiah <em>abuse</em> the Jews when he addressed to them + the cutting reproofs contained in the first chapter of his prophecies, + and ended by telling them, they would be <em>ashamed</em> of the oaks they + had desired, and <em>confounded</em> for the garden they had chosen? Did + John the Baptist <em>abuse</em> the Jews when he called them "<em>a generation + of vipers</em>," and warned them "to bring forth fruits meet for repentance?" + Did Peter abuse the Jews when he told them they were the + <em>murderers</em> of the Lord of Glory? Did Paul abuse the Roman Governor + when he reasoned before him of righteousness, temperance, + and judgment, so as to send conviction home to his guilty heart, and + cause him to tremble in view of the crimes he was living in? Surely + not. No man will now accuse the prophets and apostles of <em>abuse</em>, + but what have Abolitionists done more than they? No doubt the + Jews thought the prophets and apostles in their day, just as harsh + and uncharitable as slaveholders now, think Abolitionists; if they + did not, why did they beat, and stone, and kill them? + + </p> + <p> + Great fault has been found with the prints which have been employed + to expose slavery at the North, but my friends, how could this + be done so effectually in any other way? Until the pictures of the + slave's sufferings were drawn and held up to public gaze, no Northerner + had any idea of the cruelty of the system, it never entered their + minds that such abominations could exist in Christian, Republican + America; they never suspected that many of the <em>gentlemen</em> + and <em>ladies</em> + who came from the South to spend the summer months in travelling + among them, were petty tyrants at home. And those who had lived + at the South, and came to reside at the North, were too <em>ashamed of + slavery</em> even to speak of it; the language of their hearts was, "tell it + <em>not</em> in Gath, publish it <em>not</em> in the streets of + Askelon;" they saw no + + use in uncovering the loathsome body to popular sight, and + in hopeless despair, + wept in secret places over the sins of oppression. To + such hidden mourners the formation of Anti-Slavery Societies was + as life from the dead, the first beams of hope which gleamed through + the dark clouds of despondency and grief. Prints were made use + of to effect the abolition of the Inquisition in Spain, and Clarkson + employed them when he was laboring to break up the Slave trade, + and English Abolitionists used them just as we are now doing. + They are powerful appeals and have invariably done the work they + were designed to do, and we cannot consent to abandon the use of + these until the <em>realities</em> no longer exist. + + </p> + <p> + With regard to those white men, who, it was said, did try to raise + an insurrection in Mississippi a year ago, and who were stated to be + Abolitionists, none of them were proved to be members of + Anti-Slavery Societies, and it must remain a matter of + great doubt whether, + even they were guilty of the crimes alledged against them, because + when any community is thrown into such a panic as to inflict Lynch + law upon accused persons, they cannot be supposed to be capable of + judging with calmness and impartiality. <em>We know</em> that the + papers of which the Charleston mail was robbed, were <em>not</em> + insurrectionary, and that they were <em>not</em> sent to the + colored people as was reported. <em>We know</em> that Amos Dresser + was <em>no insurrectionist</em> though he was accused + of being so, and on this false accusation was publicly whipped in + Nashville in the midst of a crowd of infuriated <em>slaveholders</em>. + Was that young man disgraced by this infliction of corporal punishment? + No more than was the great apostle of the Gentiles who five times + received forty stripes, save one. Like him, he might have said, + "henceforth I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus," for + it was for the <em>truth's sake, he suffered</em>, as much as + did the Apostle Paul. Are Nelson, and Garrett, and Williams, and + other Abolitionists who have recently been banished from Missouri, + insurrectionists? + <em>We know</em> they are <em>not</em>, whatever slaveholders + may choose to call them. + The spirit which now asperses the character of the Abolitionists, is the + <em>very same</em> which dressed up the Christians of Spain in + the skins of wild beasts and pictures of devils when they were led + to execution as heretics. Before we condemn individuals, it is + necessary, even in a wicked + community, to accuse them of some crime; hence, when Jezebel + wished to compass the death of Naboth, men of Belial were suborned + to bear <em>false</em> witness against him, and so it was with + Stephen, and so it ever has been, and ever will be, as long as there + is any virtue to suffer on the rack, or the gallows. <em>False</em> + witnesses must appear + against Abolitionists before they can be condemned. + + </p> + <p> + I will now say a few words on George Thompson's mission to + this country. This Philanthropist was accused of being a foreign + emissary. Were La Fayette, and Steuben, and De Kalb, foreign + emissaries when they came over to America to fight against the + tories, who preferred submitting to what was termed, "the yoke of + servitude," rather than bursting the fetters which bound them to the + mother country? <em>They</em> came with <em>carnal weapons</em> to + engage in <em>bloody</em> + conflict against American citizens, and yet, where do their names + stand on the page of History. Among the honorable, or the low? + Thompson came here to war against the giant sin of slavery, + <em>not</em> with + the sword and the pistol, but with the smooth stones of oratory taken + from the pure waters of the river of Truth. His splendid talents + and commanding eloquence rendered him a powerful coadjutor in the + Anti-Slavery cause, and in order to neutralize the effects of these + upon his auditors, and rob the poor slave of the benefits of his labors, + his character was defamed, his life was sought, and he at last driven + from our Republic, as a fugitive. But was <em>Thompson</em> disgraced + by all this mean and contemptible and wicked chicanery and malice? No + more than was Paul, when in consequence of a vision he had seen at + Troas, he went over to Macedonia to help the Christians there, and + was beaten and imprisoned, because he cast out a spirit of divination + from a young damsel which had brought much gain to her masters. + Paul was as much a <em>foreign emissary</em> in the Roman colony + of Philippi, as George Thompson was in America, and it was because + he was a <em>Jew</em>, and taught customs it was not lawful for + them to receive or observe, being Romans, that the Apostle was thus + treated. + + </p> + <p> + It was said, Thompson was a felon, who had fled to this country to + escape transportation to New Holland. Look at him now pouring + the thundering strains of his eloquence, upon crowded audiences in + Great Britain, and see in this a triumphant vindication of his character. + And have the slaveholder, and his obsequious apologist, gained + any thing by all their violence and falsehood? No! for the stone + which struck Goliath of Gath, had already been thrown from the + sling. The giant of slavery who had so proudly defied the armies + of the living God, had received his death-blow before he left our + shores. But what is George Thompson doing there? Is he not now + laboring there, as effectually to abolish American slavery as though + he trod our own soil, and lectured to New York or Boston assemblies? + What is he doing there, but constructing a stupendous dam, + which will turn the overwhelming tide of public opinion over the + wheels of that machinery which Abolitionists are working here. He + is now lecturing to <em>Britons</em> on <em>American Slavery</em>, + to the <em>subjects</em> of a <em>King</em>, on the abject + condition of the <em>slaves of a Republic</em>. He is telling + them of that mighty confederacy of petty tyrants which extends + ever thirteen States of our Union. He is telling them of the munificent + rewards offered by slaveholders, for the heads of the most distinguished + advocates for freedom in this country. He is moving the + British Churches to send out to the churches of America the most + solemn appeals, reproving, rebuking, and exhorting them with all + long suffering and patience to abandon the sin of slavery immediately. + Where then I ask, will the name of George Thompson stand on the + page of History? Among the honorable, or the base? + + </p> + <p> + What can I say more, my friends, to induce <em>you</em> to set + your hands, and heads, and hearts, to this great work of justice + and mercy. Perhaps you have feared the consequences of immediate + Emancipation, + and been frightened by all those dreadful prophecies of rebellion, + + bloodshed and murder, which have been uttered. "Let no man deceive + you;" they are the predictions of that same "lying spirit" which + spoke through the four thousand prophets of old, to Ahab king of + Israel, urging him on to destruction. <em>Slavery</em> may produce these + horrible scenes if it is continued five years longer, but Emancipation + <em>never will</em>. + + </p> + <p> + I can prove the <em>safety</em> of immediate Emancipation by history. In + St. Domingo in 1793 six hundred thousand slaves were set free in a + white population of forty-two thousand. That Island "marched as + by enchantment towards its ancient splendor", cultivation prospered, + every day produced perceptible proofs of its progress, and the + negroes all continued quietly to work on the different plantations, + until in 1802, France determined to reduce these liberated slaves + again to bondage. It was at <em>this time</em> that all those + dreadful scenes of cruelty occurred, which we so often + <em>unjustly</em> hear spoken of, as the + effects of Abolition. They were occasioned <em>not</em> by + Emancipation, but by the base attempt to fasten the chains of + slavery on the limbs of liberated slaves. + + </p> + <p> + In Guadaloupe eighty-five thousand slaves were freed in a white + population of thirteen thousand. The same prosperous effects followed + manumission here, that had attended it in Hayti, every thing + was quiet until Buonaparte sent out a fleet to reduce these negroes + again to slavery, and in 1802 this institution was re-established in + that Island. In 1834, when Great Britain determined to liberate the + slaves in her West India colonies, and proposed the apprenticeship + system; the planters of Bermuda and Antigua, after having joined + the other planters in their representations of the bloody consequences + of Emancipation, in order if possible to hold back the hand which + was offering the boon of freedom to the poor negro; as soon as they + found such falsehoods were utterly disregarded, and Abolition must + take place, came forward voluntarily, and asked for the compensation + which was due to them, saying, <em>they preferred immediate + emancipation</em>, + and were not afraid of any insurrection. And how is it with these + islands now? They are decidedly more prosperous than any of those + in which the apprenticeship system was adopted, and England is now + trying to abolish that system, so fully convinced is she that immediate + Emancipation is the <em>safest</em> and the best plan. + + </p> + <p> + And why not try it in the Southern States, if it <em>never</em> has + occasioned rebellion; if <em>not a drop of blood</em> has ever + been shed in consequence of it, though it has been so often tried, + why should we suppose it would produce such disastrous consequences + now? "Be not deceived then, God is not mocked," by such false excuses + for not doing justly and loving mercy. There is nothing to fear from + immediate Emancipation, but <em>every thing</em> from the continuance + of slavery. + + </p> + <p> + Sisters in Christ, I have done. As a Southerner, I have felt it was + my duty to address you. I have endeavoured to set before you the + exceeding sinfulness of slavery, and to point you to the example of + those noble women who have been raised up in the church to effect + great revolutions, and to suffer for the truth's sake. I have appealed + + to your sympathies as women, to your sense of duty as <em>Christian + women</em>>. I have attempted to vindicate the Abolitionists, to prove the + entire safety of immediate Emancipation, and to plead the cause of + the poor and oppressed. I have done—I have sowed the seeds of + truth, but I well know, that even if an Apollos were to follow in + my steps to water them, "<em>God only</em> can give the increase." To + Him then who is able to prosper the work of his servant's hand, I + commend this Appeal in fervent prayer, that as he "hath <em>chosen the + weak things of the world</em>, to confound the things which are mighty," + so He may cause His blessing, to descend and carry conviction to the + hearts of many Lydias through these speaking pages. Farewell.—Count + me not your "enemy because I have told you the truth," but + believe me in unfeigned affection, + + </p> + <p>Your sympathizing Friend,</p> + <p>ANGELINA E. GRIMKÉ.</p> + <p> + Published by the American Anti-Slavery Society, corner of Spruce + and Nassau Streets. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h2><a name="E2RC"></a><br><br><br> + THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + <br> + + * * * * * + + <br> + VOL. I. SEPTEMBER, 1836. No. 2. + + <br><br> + + * * * * * + + <br><br><br><br> + APPEAL + <br> + TO THE + <br> + CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH, + <br></h2> + <p> + BY A.E. GRIMKÉ + + </p> + <p> + REVISED AND CORRECTED. + + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + "Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not within thyself that + thou shalt escape in the king's house more than all the Jews. For if + thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shalt there + enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place: but + thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth + whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this. And + Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer:—and so will I go + in unto the king, which is not according to law, + and <em>if I perish, I perish</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Esther IV. 13-16. + + </p> + </blockquote> + <p>RESPECTED FRIENDS,</p> + <p> + It is because I feel a deep and tender interest in your present and + eternal welfare that I am willing thus publicly to address you. Some + of you have loved me as a relative, and some have felt bound to me + in Christian sympathy, and Gospel fellowship; and even when compelled + by a strong sense of duty, to break those outward bonds of + union which bound us together as members of the same community, + and members of the same religious denomination, you were generous + enough to give me credit, for sincerity as a Christian, though you + believed I had been most strangely deceived. I thanked you then + for your kindness, and I ask you <em>now</em>, for the sake of + former confidence, + and former friendship, to read the following pages in the spirit + of calm investigation and fervent prayer. It is because you have + known me, that I write thus unto you. + + </p> + <p> + But there are other Christian women scattered over the Southern + States, of whom a very large number have never seen me, and + never heard my name, and feel <em>no</em> personal interest + whatever in <em>me</em>. + But I feel an interest in <em>you</em>, as branches of the same + vine from whose + root I daily draw the principle of spiritual vitality—Yes! Sisters + in Christ I feel an interest in <em>you</em>, and often has the + secret prayer + arisen on your behalf, Lord "open thou their eyes that they may see + wondrous things out of thy Law"—It is then, because I + <em>do feel</em> and <em>do pray</em> for you, that I thus + address you upon a subject about which + of all others, perhaps you would rather not hear any thing; but, + "would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly, and indeed + bear with me, for I am jealous over you with godly jealousy." + Be not afraid then to read my appeal; it is <em>not</em> + written in the heat of + passion or prejudice, but in that solemn calmness which is the result + of conviction and duty. It is true, I am going to tell you unwelcome + truths, but I mean to speak these <em>truths in love</em>, and remember + + Solomon says, "faithful are the <em>wounds</em> of a friend." + I do not believe the time has yet come when <em>Christian women</em> + "will not endure sound doctrine," even on the subject of Slavery, + if it is spoken to them in tenderness and love, therefore I now + address <em>you</em>. + + </p> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + <p> + POSTAGE.—This periodical contains four and a half sheets. Postage under 100 + miles, 6 3-4 cents; over 100 miles, 11 1-4 cents. + + </p> + <p><b><i>Please read and circulate.</i></b></p> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + <p> + To all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers, (for + you are all <em>one</em> in Christ,) I would speak. I have felt + for you at this + time, when unwelcome light is pouring in upon the world on the + subject of slavery; light which even Christians would exclude, if + they could, from our country, or at any rate from the southern portion + of it, saying, as its rays strike the rock bound coasts of New + England and scatter their warmth and radiance over her hills and + valleys, and from thence travel onward over the Palisades of the + Hudson, and down the soft flowing waters of the Delaware and + gild the waves of the Potomac, "hitherto shalt thou come and no + further;" I know that even professors of His name who has been + emphatically called the "Light of the world" would, if they could, + build a wall of adamant around the Southern States whose top might + reach unto heaven, in order to shut out the light which is bounding + from mountain to mountain and from the hills to the plains and valleys + beneath, through the vast extent of our Northern States. But + believe me, when I tell you, their attempts will be as utterly fruitless + as were the efforts of the builders of Babel; and why? Because + moral, like natural light, is so extremely subtle in its nature as to + overleap all human barriers, and laugh at the puny efforts of man to + control it. All the excuses and palliations of this system must inevitably + be swept away, just as other "refuges of lies" have been, by + the irresistible torrent of a rectified public opinion. "The + <em>supporters</em> of the slave system," says Jonathan Dymond + in his admirable work on the Principles of Morality, "will + <em>hereafter</em> be regarded with the <em>same</em> + public feeling, as he who was an advocate for the slave trade + <em>now</em> is." + It will be, and that very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged + by all the virtuous and the candid, that in <em>principle</em> it is as + sinful to hold a human being in bondage who has been born in + Carolina, as one who has been born in Africa. All that sophistry + of argument which has been employed to prove, that although it is + sinful to send to Africa to procure men and women as slaves, who + have never been in slavery, that still, it is not sinful to keep those in + bondage who have come down by inheritance, will be utterly overthrown. + We must come back to the good old doctrine of our forefathers + who declared to the world, "this self evident truth that <em>all</em> + men are created equal, and that they have certain <em>inalienable</em> + rights among which are life, <em>liberty</em>, and the pursuit of + happiness." It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a man can be + legally born a slave under <em>our free Republican</em> Government, + than under the petty + despotisms of barbarian Africa. If then, we have no right to enslave + an African, surely we can have none to enslave an American; if it is + a self evident truth that <em>all</em> men, every where and of + every color are born equal, and have an + <em>inalienable right to liberty</em>, then it is equally + true that <em>no</em> man can be born a slave, and no man can + ever <em>rightfully</em> + be reduced to <em>involuntary</em> bondage and held as a slave, + however fair + may be the claim of his master or mistress through wills and title-deeds. + + </p> + <p> + But after all, it may be said, our fathers were certainly mistaken, for + the Bible sanctions Slavery, and that is the highest authority. Now + the Bible is my ultimate appeal in all matters of faith and practice, + and it is to <em>this test</em> I am anxious to bring the subject + at issue between + us. Let us then begin with Adam and examine the charter + of privileges which was given to him. "Have dominion over the fish + of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing + that moveth upon the earth." In the eighth Psalm we have a still + fuller description of this charter which through Adam was given to all + mankind. "Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of + thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet. All sheep and + oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, the fish of + the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." + And after the flood when this charter of human rights was renewed, + we find <em>no additional</em> power vested in man. "And the fear of you + and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and + every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth, and + upon all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered." + In this charter, although the different kinds of <em>irrational</em> + beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion + over <em>all of them</em> is granted, yet <em>man</em> is + <em>never</em> vested with this dominion <em>over his fellow + man</em>; he was never told that any of the human species were put + <em>under his feet</em>; it was only <em>all things</em>, and + man, who was created in the image of his Maker, <em>never</em> can + properly be termed a <em>thing</em>, though the laws of Slave States + do call him "a chattel personal;" <em>Man</em> then, + I assert <em>never</em> was put <em>under the feet of man</em>, + by that first charter + of human right, which was given by God, to the Fathers of the Antediluvian + and Postdiluvian worlds, therefore this doctrine of equality + is based on the Bible. + + </p> + <p> + But it may be argued, that in the very chapter of Genesis from + which I have last quoted, will be found the curse pronounced upon + Canaan, by which his posterity was consigned to servitude under his + brothers Shem and Japheth. I know this prophecy was uttered, and + was most fearfully and wonderfully fulfilled, through the immediate + descendants of Canaan, i.e. the Canaanites, and I do not know but + it has been through all the children of Ham, but I do know that + prophecy does <em>not</em> tell us what <em>ought to be</em>, but + what actually does + take place, ages after it has been delivered, and that if we justify + America for enslaving the children of Africa, we must also justify + Egypt for reducing the children of Israel to bondage, for the latter + was foretold as explicitly as the former. I am well aware that prophecy + has often been urged as an excuse for Slavery, but be not + deceived, the fulfilment of prophecy will <em>not cover one sin</em> + in the awful + day of account. Hear what our Saviour says on this subject; "it + must needs be that offences come, but <em>woe unto that man through + whom they come</em>"—Witness some fulfilment of this declaration + in the + tremendous destruction of Jerusalem, occasioned by that most nefarious + + of all crimes the crucifixion of the Son of God. Did the fact + of that event having been foretold, exculpate the Jews from sin in + perpetrating it; No—for hear what the Apostle Peter says to them + on this subject, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel + and foreknowledge of God, <em>ye</em> have taken, and by + <em>wicked</em> hands have + crucified and slain." Other striking instances might be adduced, but + these will suffice. + + </p> + <p> + But it has been urged that the patriarchs held slaves, and therefore, + slavery is right. Do you really believe that patriarchal servitude was + like American slavery? Can you believe it? If so, read the history of + these primitive fathers of the church and be undeceived. Look at + Abraham, though so great a man, going to the herd himself and + fetching a calf from thence and serving it up with his own hands, for + the entertainment of his guests. Look at Sarah, that princess as her + name signifies, baking cakes upon the hearth. If the servants they + had were like Southern slaves, would they have performed such + comparatively menial offices for themselves? Hear too the plaintive + lamentation of Abraham when he feared he should have no son to + bear his name down to posterity. "Behold thou hast given me no + seed, &c., one born in my house is <em>mine</em> heir." From this + it appears that one of his <em>servants</em> was to inherit his + immense estate. Is this + like Southern slavery? I leave it to your own good sense and candor + to decide. Besides, such was the footing upon which Abraham was + with <em>his</em> servants, that he trusted them with arms. + Are slaveholders + willing to put swords and pistols into the hands of their slaves? He + was as a father among his servants; what are planters and masters + generally among theirs? When the institution of circumcision was + established, Abraham was commanded thus; "He that is eight days + old shall be circumcised among you, <em>every</em> man-child in + your generations; + he that is born in the house, or bought with money of + any stranger which is not of thy seed." And to render this command + with regard to his <em>servants</em> still more impressive + it is repeated + in the very next verse; and herein we may perceive the great care + which was taken by God to guard the <em>rights of servants</em> + even under + this "dark dispensation." What too was the testimony given to the + faithfulness of this eminent patriarch. "For I know him that he will + command his children and his <em>household</em> after him, and + they shall + keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment." Now my + dear friends many of you believe that circumcision has been superseded + by baptism in the Church; <em>Are you</em> careful to + have <em>all</em> that + are born in your house or bought with money of any stranger, baptized? + Are <em>you</em> as faithful as Abraham to command + <em>your household</em> to + <em>keep the way of the Lord?</em> I leave it to your own + consciences to decide. + Was patriarchal servitude then like American Slavery? + + </p> + <p> + But I shall be told, God sanctioned Slavery, yea commanded Slavery + under the Jewish Dispensation. Let us examine this subject + calmly and prayerfully. I admit that a species of + <em>servitude</em> was permitted + to the Jews, but in studying the subject I have been struck + with wonder and admiration at perceiving how carefully the servant + + was guarded from violence, injustice, and wrong. I will first inform + you how these servants became servants, for I think this a very important + part of our subject. From consulting Horne, Calmet, and + the Bible, I find there were six different ways by which the Hebrews + became servants legally. + + </p> + <p> + 1. A Hebrew, whose father was still alive, and who on that account + had not inherited his patrimonial estate, might sell himself, i.e., his + services, for six years, in which case <em>he</em> received the + purchase money <em>himself</em>. Ex. xxi, 2. + + </p> + <p> + 2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e., his + <em>daughters</em>, in which circumstance it was understood + the daughter was to be the wife or daughter-in-law of the man who + bought her, and the <em>father</em> received the price. In other + words, Jewish women were sold as <em>white women</em> were in the + first settlement of Virginia—as <em>wives, not</em> as slaves. + Ex. xxi, 7-11. + + </p> + <p> + 3. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold + for the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3. + + </p> + <p> + 4. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4. + + </p> + <p> + 5. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself; + but in such a case he was to serve, not as a bondsman, whose term + of service was only six years, nor was he to serve as a hired servant, + who received his wages every evening, nor yet as a sojourner or + temporary resident in the family, but he was to serve his master until + the year of Jubilee<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE2RC_FN1"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE2RC_FN1"></a>. Lev. xxv, 39, 40. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE2RC_FN1"></a><a href="#FootE2RC_FN1">A</a>: If the reader will + leave out the italicised words—But and And, in the 40th + verse—he will find that I am fully authorized in the meaning + I have attached to it. But and And are <em>not</em> in the original + Hebrew; have been introduced by the translators, and + entirely destroy the true sense of the passage. + </p> + <p> + 6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be + redeemed by one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; + and he who redeemed him, was <em>not</em> to take advantage of the + favor thus conferred, and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55. + + </p> + <p> + Before going into an examination of the laws by which these servants + were protected, I would just ask whether American slaves have become + slaves in any of the ways in which the Hebrews became servants. + Did they sell themselves into slavery and receive the purchase money + into their own hands? No! No! Did they steal the property of + another, and were they sold to make restitution for their crimes? + No! Did their present masters, as an act of kindness, redeem them + from some heathen tyrant to whom <em>they had sold themselves</em> + in the dark hour of adversity? No! Were they born in slavery? No! + No! Not according to <em>Jewish Law</em>, for the servants who + were born in servitude among them, were born of parents who had + <em>sold themselves</em>: + Ex. xxi, 4; Lev. xxv, 39, 40. Were the female slaves of + the South sold by their fathers? How shall I answer this question? + Thousands and tens of thousands never were, <em>their</em> fathers + <em>never</em> have + received the poor compensation of silver or gold for the tears and + toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless bondage of + <em>their</em> daughters. + They labor day by day, and year by year, side by side, in + + the same field, if haply their daughters are permitted to remain on + the same plantation with them, instead of being, as they often are, + separated from their parents and sold into distant states, never again + to meet on earth. But do the <em>fathers of the South ever sell their + daughters?</em> My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the + awful affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell + their daughters, <em>not</em> as Jewish parents did, to be the + wives and daughters-in-law + of the men who buy them, but to be the abject slaves of + petty tyrants and irresponsible masters. Is it not so, my friends? I + leave it to your own candor to corroborate my assertion. Southern + slaves then have <em>not</em> become slaves in any of the six + different ways + in which Hebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that + American masters <em>cannot</em> according to <em>Jewish law</em> + substantiate their + claim to the men, women, or children they now hold in bondage. + + </p> + <p> + But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced + to servitude; it was this, he might be <em>stolen</em> and afterwards + sold as a + slave, as was Joseph. To guard most effectually against this dreadful + crime of manstealing, God enacted this severe law. "He that + stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall + surely be put to death." And again, "If a man be found stealing + any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise + of him, or selleth him; then <em>that thief shall die</em>; and + thou shalt put + away evil from among you." Deut. xxiv, 7. As I have tried American + Slavery by <em>legal</em> Hebrew servitude, and found, (to your + surprise, + perhaps,) that Jewish law cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let + us now try it by <em>illegal</em> Hebrew bondage. Have the Southern + slaves + then been stolen? If they did not sell themselves into bondage; if + they were not sold as thieves; if they were not redeemed from a + heathen master to whom <em>they had sold themselves;</em> if they + were not + born in servitude according to Hebrew law; and if the females were + not sold by their fathers as wives and daughters-in-law to those who + purchased them; then what shall we say of them? what can we say + of them? but that according <em>to Hebrew Law they have been stolen.</em></p> + <p> + But I shall be told that the Jews had other servants who were + absolute slaves. Let us look a little into this also. They had other + servants who were procured from the heathen. + + </p> + <p> + Bondmen and bondmaids might be bought of the heathen round + about them. Lev. xxv, 44. + + </p> + <p> + I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of + Hebrew masters to their <em>heathen</em> servants. Were the southern + slaves bought from the heathen? No! For surely, no one will + <em>now</em> vindicate + the slave-trade so far as to assert that slaves were bought from + the heathen who were obtained by that system of piracy. The only + excuse for holding southern slaves is that they were born in slavery, + but we have seen that they were <em>not</em> born in servitude as + Jewish servants + were, and that the children of heathen servants were not legally + subjected to bondage, even under the Mosaic Law. How then have + the slaves of the South been obtained? + + </p> + <p> + I will next proceed to an examination of those laws which were enacted + + in order to protect the Hebrew and the Heathen servant; for I wish + you to understand that <em>both</em> were protected by Him, of whom + it is said + "his mercies are over <em>all</em> his works." I will first speak + of those which + secured the rights of Hebrew servants. This code was headed thus: + + </p> + <p> + 1. Thou shalt <em>not</em> rule over him with <em>rigor</em>, but + shalt fear thy God. + + </p> + <p> + 2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the + seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. xxi, 2. And when + thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away + empty: Thou shalt furnish him <em>liberally</em> out of thy flock + and out of thy + floor, and out of thy wine-press: of that wherewith the Lord thy God + hath blessed thee, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv, 13, 14. + + </p> + <p> + 3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were + married, then his wife shall go out with him. Ex. xxi, 3. + + </p> + <p> + 4. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons + and daughters, the wife and her children shall be his master's, and he + shall go out by himself. Ex. xxi, 4. + + </p> + <p> + 5. If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and + my children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him + unto the Judges, and he shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post, + and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he + shall serve him <em>for ever</em>. Ex. xxi, 5, 6. + + </p> + <p> + 6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that + it perish, he shall let him go <em>free</em> for his eye's sake. And + if he smite + out his man servant's tooth or his maid servant's tooth, he shall let + him go <em>free</em> for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27. + + </p> + <p> + 7. On the Sabbath, rest was secured to servants by the fourth commandment. + Ex. xx, 10. + + </p> + <p> + 8. Servants were permitted to unite with their masters three times + in every year in celebrating the Passover, the feast of Weeks, and the + feast of Tabernacles; every male throughout the land was to appear + before the Lord at Jerusalem with a gift; here the bond and the free + stood on common ground. Deut. xvi. + + </p> + <p> + 9. If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die + under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he + continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. + Ex. xxi, 20, 21. + + </p> + <p> + From these laws we learn, that one class of Hebrew men servants + were bound to serve their masters <em>only six</em> years, unless + their attachment + to their employers, their wives and children, should induce them + to wish to remain in servitude, in which case, in order to prevent the + possibility of deception on the part of the master, the servant was first + taken before the magistrate, where he openly declared his intention of + continuing in his master's service, (probably a public register was kept + of such,) he was then conducted to the door of the house, (in warm + climates doors are thrown open.) and <em>there</em> his ear was + <em>publicly</em> bored, + and by submitting to this operation, he testified his willingness to serve + him in subserviency to the law of God; for let it be remembered, that + the door-post was covered with the precepts of that law. Deut. vi, 9. + xi, 20: <em>for ever</em>, i.e., during his life, for Jewish Rabbins, + who must + have understood Jewish <em>slavery</em> (as it is called), "affirm + that servants + were set free at the death of their masters, and did <em>not</em> + descend to their + heirs;" or that he was to serve him until the year of Jubilee, + when <em>all</em> + servants were set at liberty. The other class, when they first sold + themselves, agreed to remain until the year of Jubilee. To protect + servants from violence, it was ordained, that if a master struck out + the tooth or destroyed the eye of a servant, that servant immediately + + became <em>free</em>, for such an act of violence evidently showed + he was unfit + to possess the power of a master, and therefore that power was taken + from him. All servants enjoyed the rest of the Sabbath, and partook + of the privileges and festivities of the three great Jewish Feasts; and + if a servant died under the infliction of chastisement, his master was + surely to be punished. As a tooth for a tooth and life for life was the + Jewish law, of course he was punished with death. I know that great + stress has been laid upon the following verse: "Notwithstanding, if he + continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money." + + </p> + <p> + Slaveholders, and the apologists of slavery, have eagerly seized + upon this little passage of Scripture, and held it up as the masters' + Magna Charta, by which they were licensed by God himself to commit + the greatest outrages upon the defenceless victims of their oppression. + But, my friends, was it designed to be so? If our Heavenly Father + would protect by law the <em>eye</em> and the + <em>tooth</em> of a Hebrew servant, can + we for a moment believe that he would abandon that same servant to + the brutal rage of a master who would destroy even life itself? Let us + then examine this passage with the help of the context. In the 18th + and 19th verses we have a law which was made for <em>freemen</em> + who strove + together. Here we find, that if one man smote another, so that he + died not, but only kept his bed from being disabled, and he rose again + and walked abroad upon his staff, then <em>he</em> was to be paid + for the loss + of his time, and all the expenses of his sickness were to be borne by + the man who smote him. The freeman's time was <em>his own</em>, and + therefore + he was to be remunerated for the loss of it. But <em>not</em> so with + the <em>servant</em>, whose time was, as it were, + <em>the money of his master</em>, because + he had already paid for it: If he continued a day or two after being + struck, to keep his bed in consequence of any wound received, then + his lost time was <em>not</em> to be paid for, because it + was <em>not his own</em>, but his + master's, who had already paid him for it. The loss of his time was + the <em>master's loss</em>, and <em>not</em> the servant's. This + explanation is confirmed + by the fact, that the Hebrew word translated continue, means "to + stand still;" <em>i.e.</em>, to be unable to go out about his + master's work. + + </p> + <p> + Here then we find this stronghold of slavery completely demolished. + Instead of its being a license to inflict such chastisement upon a servant + as to cause even death itself, it is in fact a law merely to provide that + a man should not be required to pay his servant twice over for his time. + It is altogether an unfounded assumption on the part of the slaveholder, + that this servant <em>died</em> after a day or two; the text does not + say so, and I contend that he <em>got well</em> after a day or two, + just as the man mentioned + in the 19th verse recovered from the effects of the blows he received. + The cases are completely parallel, and the first law throws great light + on the second. This explanation is far more consonant with the character + of God, and were it not that our vision has been so completely + darkened by the existence of slavery in our country, we never could + so far have dishonored Him as to have supposed that He sanctioned + the murder of a servant; although slaveholding legislators might legalize + the killing of a slave in <em>four</em> different + ways.—(<em>Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws</em>.) + + </p> + <p> + But I pass on now to the consideration of how the <em>female</em> Jewish + servants were protected by <em>law</em>. + + </p> + <p> + 1. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, + then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto another nation he + shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. + + </p> + <p> + 2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after + the manner of daughters. + + </p> + <p> + 3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty + of marriage, shall he not diminish. + + </p> + <p> + 4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out + <em>free</em> without money. + + </p> + <p> + On these laws I will give you Calmet's remarks; "A father could + not sell his daughter as a slave, according to the Rabbins, until she + was at the age of puberty, and unless he were reduced to the utmost + indigence. Besides, when a master bought an Israelitish girl, it was + <em>always</em> with the presumption that he would take her to wife. + Hence + Moses adds, 'if she please not her master, and he does not think fit + to marry her, he shall set her at liberty,' or according to the Hebrew, + 'he shall let her be redeemed.' 'To sell her to another nation he shall + have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her;' as to the + engagement implied, at least of taking her to wife. 'If he have betrothed + her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of + daughters;' i.e., he shall take care that his son uses her as his wife, + that he does not despise or maltreat her. If he make his son marry + another wife, he shall give her her dowry, her clothes, and compensation + for her virginity; if he does none of these three, she shall + <em>go out free</em> + without money." Thus were the <em>rights of female servants carefully + secured by law</em> under the Jewish Dispensation; and now I would ask, + are the rights of female slaves at the South thus secured? + Are <em>they</em> sold only as wives and daughters-in-law, and when + not treated as such, are they allowed to <em>go out free?</em> + No! They have <em>all</em> not only been + illegally obtained as servants according to Hebrew law, but they are + also illegally <em>held</em> in bondage. Masters at the South and + West have all forfeited their claims, (<em>if they ever had + any,</em>) to their female slaves. + + </p> + <p> + We come now to examine the case of those servants who were + "of the heathen round about;" Were <em>they</em> left entirely + unprotected by + law? Horne, in speaking of the law, "Thou shalt not rule over him + with rigor, but shalt fear thy God," remarks, "this law, Lev. xxv, 43, + it is true, speaks expressly of slaves who were of Hebrew descent; + but as <em>alien born</em> slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew + Church by circumcision, <em>there is no doubt</em> but that it + applied to <em>all</em> slaves:" if so, + then we may reasonably suppose that the other protective laws extended + to them also; and that the only difference between Hebrew + and Heathen servants lay in this, that the former served but six years, + unless they chose to remain longer, and were always freed at the + death of their masters; whereas, the latter served until the year of + Jubilee, though that might include a period of forty-nine years,—and + were left from father to son. + + </p> + <p> + There are, however, two other laws which I have not yet noticed. + The one effectually prevented <em>all involuntary</em> servitude, + and the other + completely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were + equally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew. + + </p> + <p> + 1. "Thou shalt <em>not</em> deliver unto his master + the servant that is escaped + from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among + you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it + liketh him best: thou shalt <em>not</em> oppress him." + Deut. xxiii, 15, 16. + + </p> + <p> + 2. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim + <em>Liberty</em> + throughout <em>all</em> the land, unto <em>all</em> the + inhabitants thereof; it shall be a + jubilee unto you." Lev. xxv, 10. + + </p> + <p> + Here, then, we see that by this first law, the <em>door of Freedom was + opened wide to every servant who</em> had any cause whatever + for complaint; + if he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him, + and <em>no man</em> had a right to deliver him back to him again, + and not only so, but the absconded servant was to <em>choose</em> + where he should live, + + and no Jew was permitted to oppress him. He left his master just + as our Northern servants leave us; we have no power to compel them + to remain with us, and no man has any right to oppress them; they + go and dwell in that place where it chooseth them, and live just where + they like. Is it so at the South? Is the poor runaway slave protected + <em>by law</em> from the violence of that master whose oppression and + cruelty has driven him from his plantation or his house? No! no! + Even the free states of the North are compelled to deliver unto his + master the servant that is escaped from his master into them. By + <em>human</em> law, under the <em>Christian Dispensation</em>, in + the <em>nineteenth century we</em> are commanded to do, + what <em>God</em> more than <em>three thousand</em> years + ago, under the <em>Mosaic Dispensation</em>, + <em>positively commanded</em> the Jews + <em>not</em> to do. In the wide domain even of our free states, there + is not <em>one</em> city of refuge for the poor runaway fugitive; + not one spot upon + which he can stand and say, I am a free man—I am protected in my + rights as a <em>man</em>, by the strong arm of the law; + no! <em>not one</em>. How + long the North will thus shake hands with the South in sin, I know + not. How long she will stand by like the persecutor + Saul, <em>consenting</em> + unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the raiment of them that slew + him. I know not; but one thing I do know, + the <em>guilt of the North</em> + is increasing in a tremendous ratio as light is pouring in upon her on + the subject and the sin of slavery. As the sun of righteousness + climbs higher and higher in the moral heavens, she will stand still + more and more abashed as the query is thundered down into her ear, + "<em>Who</em> hath required <em>this</em> at thy hand?" It will + be found <em>no</em> excuse then + that the Constitution of our country required that <em>persons + bound to service</em> + escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no more + excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the forbidden + fruit. <em>He was condemned and punished because</em> he hearkened + to the voice of <em>his wife</em>, rather than to the command of his + Maker; and <em>we</em> shall assuredly be condemned and punished + for obeying <em>Man</em> rather than <em>God</em>, if we do not + speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Yea, are we + not receiving chastisement even <em>now</em>? + + </p> + <p> + But by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is + disclosed. If the first effectually + prevented <em>all involuntary servitude</em>, + the last absolutely forbade + even <em>voluntary servitude being perpetual</em>. + On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the Jubilee trumpet + was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and <em>Liberty</em> was + proclaimed to <em>all</em> the inhabitants thereof. I will not say + that the servants' <em>chains</em> fell off and their + <em>manacles</em> were burst, for there is no evidence + that Jewish servants <em>ever</em> felt the weight of iron + chains, and collars, + and handcuffs; but I do say that even the man who had voluntarily + sold himself and the <em>heathen</em> who had been sold to a + Hebrew master, + were set free, the one as well as the other. This law was evidently + designed to prevent the oppression of the poor, and the possibility of + such a thing as <em>perpetual servitude</em> existing among them. + + </p> + <p> + Where, then, I would ask, is the warrant, the justification, or the + palliation of American Slavery from Hebrew servitude? How many + of the southern slaves would now be in bondage according to the + + laws of Moses; Not one. You may observe that I have carefully + avoided using the term <em>slavery</em> when speaking of Jewish + servitude; and simply for this reason, that <em>no such thing</em> + existed among that people; the word translated servant does + <em>not</em> mean <em>slave</em>, it is the + same that is applied to Abraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets + generally. <em>Slavery</em> then <em>never</em> existed under + the Jewish Dispensation at all, and I cannot but regard it as an + aspersion on the character of Him who is "glorious in Holiness" for any + one to assert that "<em>God sanctioned, yea commanded slavery</em> + under the old dispensation." + I would fain lift my feeble voice to vindicate Jehovah's + character from so foul a slander. If slaveholders are determined to + hold slaves as long as they can, let them not dare to say that the + God of mercy and of truth <em>ever</em> sanctioned such a system + of cruelty and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him. + + </p> + <p> + We have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard + to servants was designed to <em>protect them</em> as + <em>men and women</em>, to secure + to them their <em>rights</em> as <em>human beings</em>, to + guard them from oppression + and defend them from violence of every kind. Let us now turn to + the Slave laws of the South and West and examine them too. I will + give you the substance only, because I fear I shall trespass too + much on your time, were I to quote them at length. + + </p> + <p> + 1. <em>Slavery</em> is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment + of the slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest + posterity. + + </p> + <p> + 2. The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; + while the kind of labor, the amount of toil, the time allowed for rest, + are dictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages + given. A pure despotism governs the human brute; and even his + covering and provender, both as to quantity and quality, depend entirely + on the master's discretion<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE2RC_FN2"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE2RC_FN2"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE2RC_FN2"></a><a href="#FootE2RC_FN2">A</a>: There are laws in + some of the slave states, limiting the labor which the master + may require of the slave to fourteen hours daily. In some of the + states there are laws requiring the masters to furnish a certain + amount of food and clothing, as for instance, <em>one quart</em> + of corn per day, or <em>one peck</em> per week, or + <em>one bushel</em> per month, + and "<em>one</em> linen shirt and pantaloons for the summer, + and a linen shirt and woolen + great coat and pantaloons for the winter," &c. But "still," to + use the language of Judge Stroud "the slave is entirely under the + control of his master.—is unprovided + with a protector,—and, especially as he cannot be a witness + or make complaint in + any known mode against his master, the <em>apparent</em> object of + these laws may <em>always</em> be defeated." ED. + </p> + <p> + 3. The slave being considered a personal chattel may be sold or + pledged, or leased at the will of his master. He may be exchanged + for marketable commodities, or taken in execution for the debts or + taxes either of a living or dead master. Sold at auction, either + individually, or in lots to suit the purchaser, he may remain with his + family, or be separated from them for ever. + + </p> + <p> + 4. Slaves can make no contracts and have no <em>legal</em> right to any + property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings and the legacies + of friends belong in point of law to their masters. + + </p> + <p> + 5. Neither a slave nor a free colored person can be a witness + + against any <em>white</em>, or free person, in a court of justice, + however atrocious + may have been the crimes they have seen him commit, if such + testimony would be for the benefit of a <em>slave</em>; but they + may give testimony <em>against a fellow slave</em>, or free colored + man, even in cases + affecting life, if the <em>master</em> is to reap the advantage of it. + + </p> + <p> + 6. The slave may be punished at his master's discretion—without + trial—without any means of legal redress; whether his offence be + real or imaginary; and the master can transfer the same despotic + power to any person or persons, he may choose to appoint. + + </p> + <p> + 7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under <em>any</em> + circumstances, <em>his</em> only safety consists in the fact that + his <em>owner</em> may + bring suit and recover the price of his body, in case his life is taken, + or his limbs rendered unfit for labor. + + </p> + <p> + 8. Slaves cannot redeem themselves, or obtain a change of masters, though + cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary + for their personal safety. + + </p> + <p> + 9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations. + + </p> + <p> + 10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even + where the master is willing to enfranchise them. + + </p> + <p> + 11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious + instruction and consolation. + + </p> + <p> + 12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a + state of the lowest ignorance. + + </p> + <p> + 13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and + right. What is a trifling fault in the <em>white</em> man, is + considered highly criminal in the <em>slave</em>; the same + offences which cost a white man a + few dollars only, are punished in the negro with death. + + </p> + <p> + 14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of + color<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE2RC_FN3"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE2RC_FN3"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE2RC_FN3"></a><a href="#FootE2RC_FN3">A</a>: See Mrs. Child's Appeal, Chap. II. + </p> + <p> + Shall I ask you now my friends, to draw the <em>parallel</em> + between Jewish <em>servitude</em> and American <em>slavery</em>? + No! For there is <em>no likeness</em> + in the two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The + laws of Moses <em>protected servants</em> in their + <em>rights</em> as <em>men and women</em>, + guarded them from oppression and defended them from wrong. The + Code Noir of the South <em>robs the slave of all his rights</em> as + a <em>man</em>, reduces him to a chattel personal, and defends the + <em>master</em> in the exercise + of the most unnatural and unwarrantable power over his slave. + They each bear the impress of the hand which formed them. The + attributes of justice and mercy are shadowed out in the Hebrew + code; those of injustice and cruelty, in the Code Noir of America. + Truly it was wise in the slaveholders of the South to declare their + slaves to be "chattels personal;" for before they could be robbed + of wages, wives, children, and friends, it was absolutely necessary to + deny they were human beings. It is wise in them, to keep them in + abject ignorance, for the strong man armed must be bound before we + can spoil his house—the powerful intellect of man must be bound + down with the iron chains of nescience before we can rob him of his + rights as a man; we must reduce him to a <em>thing</em> before + we can claim + + the right to set our feet upon his neck, because it was only + <em>all things</em> + which were originally <em>put under the feet of man</em> by the + Almighty and Beneficent Father of all, who has declared himself to + be <em>no respecter</em> of persons, whether red, white or black. + + </p> + <p> + But some have even said that Jesus Christ did not condemn slavery. + To this I reply that our Holy Redeemer lived and preached + among the Jews only. The laws which Moses had enacted fifteen + hundred years previous to his appearance among them, had never + been annulled, and these laws protected every servant in Palestine. + If then He did not condemn Jewish servitude this does not prove + that he would not have condemned such a monstrous system as that + of American <em>slavery</em>, if that had existed among them. But + did not Jesus condemn slavery? Let us examine some of his precepts. + "<em>Whatsoever</em> ye would that men should do to you, + do <em>ye even so to them</em>." Let every slaveholder apply these + queries to his own heart; + Am <em>I</em> willing to be a slave—Am <em>I</em> willing + to see my wife the slave of another—Am <em>I</em> willing to + see my mother a slave, or my father, my sister or my brother? If not, + then in holding others as slaves, I am doing what I would <em>not</em> + wish to be done to me or any relative I have; and thus have I broken + this golden rule which was given <em>me</em> to walk by. + + </p> + <p> + But some slaveholders have said, "we were never in bondage to + any man," and therefore the yoke of bondage would be insufferable + to us, but slaves are accustomed to it, their backs are fitted to the + burden. Well, I am willing to admit that you who have lived in freedom + would find slavery even more oppressive than the poor slave + does, but then you may try this question in another form—Am I willing + to reduce <em>my little child</em> to slavery? You know + that <em>if it is brought up a slave</em> it will never know any + contrast, between freedom + and bondage, its back will become fitted to the burden just as the + negro child's does—<em>not by nature</em>—but by daily, + violent pressure, in + the same way that the head of the Indian child becomes flattened by + the boards in which it is bound. It has been justly remarked that + "<em>God never made a slave</em>," he made man upright; his back + was <em>not</em> made to carry burdens, nor his neck to wear a yoke, + and the <em>man</em> must be crushed within him, before + <em>his</em> back can be <em>fitted</em> to the burden + of perpetual slavery; and that his back is <em>not</em> fitted to it, + is manifest by the insurrections that so often disturb the peace and + security of slaveholding countries. Who ever heard of a rebellion of the + beasts of the field; and why not? simply because <em>they</em> were + all placed <em>under the feet of man</em>, into whose hand they + were delivered; it was originally designed that they should serve him, + therefore their necks have been formed for the yoke, and their backs + for the burden; but <em>not so with man</em>, intellectual, + immortal man! I appeal to you, my friends, as mothers; Are you willing + to enslave <em>your</em> children? You start back with horror and + indignation at such a question. But why, if slavery is <em>no wrong</em> + to those upon whom it is imposed? why, if + as has often been said, slaves are happier than their masters, free + from the cares and perplexities of providing for themselves and their + <em>wanting</em>? Try yourselves by another of the Divine precepts, + "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Can we love a man <em>as</em> + we love <em>ourselves if we do, and continue to do</em> unto him, + what we would not + wish any one to do to us? Look, too, at Christ's example, what does + he say of himself, "I came <em>not</em> to be ministered unto, but + to minister." + Can you for a moment imagine the meek and lowly, and compassionate + Saviour, <em>a slaveholder</em>? Do you not shudder at this thought + as much as at that of his being <em>a warrior</em>? But why, if + slavery is not sinful? + + </p> + <p> + Again, it has been said, the Apostle Paul did not condemn slavery, + for he sent Onesimus back to Philemon. I do not think it can be + said he sent him back, for no coercion was made use of. Onesimus + was not thrown into prison and then sent back in chains to his master, + as your runaway slaves often are—this could not possibly have been + the case, because you know Paul as a Jew, was <em>bound to protect</em> + the runaway; <em>he had no right</em> to send <em>any</em> fugitive + back to his master. + The state of the case then seems to have been this. Onesimus had + been an unprofitable servant to Philemon and left him—he afterwards + became converted under the Apostle's preaching, and seeing that he + had been to blame in his conduct, and desiring by future fidelity to + atone for past error, he wished to return, and the Apostle gave him + the letter we now have as a recommendation to Philemon, informing + him of the conversion of Onesimus, and entreating him as "Paul the + aged" "to receive him, <em>not</em> now as a <em>servant</em>, + but <i>above</i> a servant, a <em>brother + beloved</em>, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, + both in the flesh and in the Lord. If thou count <em>me</em> therefore + as a partner, <em>receive him as myself</em>." This, then, surely + cannot be forced + into a justification of the practice of returning runaway slaves back + to their masters, to be punished with cruel beatings and scourgings + as they often are. Besides the word <em>doulos</em> here translated + servant, is the same that is made use of in Matt. xviii, 27. Now it appears + that this servant <em>owed</em> his lord ten thousand talents; + he possessed property to a vast amount. And what is still more + surprising, if he was a <em>slave</em>, is, that "forasmuch as he + had not to pay, his lord commanded <em>him</em> to be sold, and his + wife and children, and all that he + had, and payment to be made." Whoever heard of a slaveholder + selling a <em>slave</em> and his family to pay himself a debt due to + him from a <em>slave</em>? What would he gain by it when the slave is + himself his <em>property</em>, and his wife and children also? Onesimus + could not, then, have been a <em>slave</em>, for slaves do not own + their wives or children; no, + not even their own bodies, much less property. But again, the servitude + which the apostle was accustomed to, must have been very different from + American slavery, for he says, "the heir (or son), as long as + he is a child, differeth <em>nothing from a servant</em>, though he + be lord of all. + But is under <em>tutors</em> and governors until the time appointed + of the father." + From this it appears, that the means of <em>instruction</em> were + provided for <em>servants</em> as well as children; and indeed we + know it must have been + so among the Jews, because their servants were not permitted to + remain in perpetual bondage, and therefore it was absolutely necessary + they should be prepared to occupy higher stations in society + + than those of servants. Is it so at the South, my friends? Is the + daily bread of instruction provided for <em>your slaves</em>? are + their minds + enlightened, and they gradually prepared to rise from the grade of + menials into that of <em>free</em>, independent members of the state? + Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience, answer these + questions. + + </p> + <p> + If this apostle sanctioned <em>slavery</em>, why did he exhort masters + thus in his epistle to the Ephesians, "and ye, masters, do the same things + unto them (i.e. perform your duties to your servants as unto Christ, + not unto men) <em>forbearing threatening</em>; knowing that your master + also is in heaven, neither is + <em>there respect of persons with him</em>." And in + Colossians, "Masters give unto your servants that which is <em>just and + equal</em>, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." Let + slaveholders + only <em>obey</em> these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery + would soon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to + <em>threaten</em> + servants, surely he must have thought it sinful to flog and to beat + them with sticks and paddles; indeed, when delineating the character + of a bishop, he expressly names this as one feature of it, + "<em>no striker</em>." + Let masters give unto their servants that which is <em>just</em> + and <i>equal</i>, and + all that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. + Yes, and if they once felt they had no right to the <em>labor</em> of + their servants + without pay, surely they could not think they had a right to + their wives, their children, and their own bodies. Again, how can it + be said Paul sanctioned slavery, when, as though to put this matter + beyond all doubt, in that black catalogue of sins enumerated in his + first epistle to Timothy, he mentions "<i>menstealers</i>," which + word may be translated "<i>slavedealers</i>." But you + may say, we all despise slavedealers + as much as any one can; they are never admitted into genteel + or respectable society. And why not? Is it not because even you + shrink back from the idea of associating with those who make their + fortunes by trading in the bodies and souls of men, women, and children? + whose daily work it is to break human hearts, by tearing wives + from their husbands, and children from their parents? But why hold + slavedealers as despicable, if their trade is lawful and virtuous? and + why despise them more than the <em>gentlemen of fortune and + standing</em> who employ them as <em>their</em> agents? Why more + than the <em>professors of religion</em> who barter their + fellow-professors to them for gold and silver? + We do not despise the land agent, or the physician, or the merchant, + and why? Simply because their processions are virtuous and honorable; + and if the trade of men-jobbers was honorable, you would not + despise them either. There is no difference in <em>principle</em>, + in <i>Christian ethics</i>, between the despised + slavedealer and the <i>Christian</i> who buys + slaves from, or sells slaves to him; indeed, if slaves were not wanted + by the respectable, the wealthy, and the religious in a community, + there would be no slaves in that community, and of course no + <em>slavedealers</em>. + It is then the <em>Christians</em> and the <em>honorable men</em> + and <em>women</em> of the South, who are the <em>main pillars</em> + of this grand temple built to Mammon and to Moloch. It is the + <em>most enlightened</em>, in every country + who are <em>most</em> to blame when any public sin is supported by + public + + opinion, hence Isaiah says, "<em>When</em> the Lord hath performed his + whole work upon mount <em>Zion</em> and on <em>Jerusalem</em>, + (then) I will punish + the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his + high looks." And was it not so? Open the historical records of + that age, was not Israel carried into captivity B.C. 721, Judah B.C. + 588, and the stout heart of the heathen monarchy not punished until + B.C. 536, fifty-two years <em>after</em> Judah's, and 185 years, + <em>after</em> Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by Cyrus, + king of Persia? + Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, "judgment must <em>begin at the + house of God</em>." Surely this would not be the case, if the + <em>professors of religion</em> were not <em>most worthy</em> of + blame. + + </p> + <p> + But it may be asked, why are <em>they</em> most culpable? I will tell + you, my friends. It is because sin is imputed to us just in proportion to + the spiritual light we receive. Thus the prophet Amos says, in the + name of Jehovah, "<em>You only</em> have I known of all the families + of the earth: <em>therefore</em> I will punish <em>you</em> for + all your iniquities." Hear too the doctrine of our Lord on this important + subject: "The servant who <em>knew</em> his Lord's will and + <em>prepared not</em> himself, neither did according + to his will, shall be beaten with <em>many stripes</em>:" and why? + "For unto whomsoever <em>much</em> is given, <em>of him</em> + shall <em>much</em> be required; + and to whom men have committed <em>much</em>, of <em>him</em> they + will ask the + <em>more</em>." Oh! then that the <em>Christians</em> of the south + would ponder these + things in their hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which + rest <em>upon them</em> at this important crisis. + + </p> + <p> + I have thus, I think, clearly proved to you seven propositions, viz.: + First, that slavery is contrary to the declaration of our independence. + Second, that it is contrary to the first charter of human rights given + to Adam, and renewed to Noah. Third, that the fact of slavery + having been the subject of prophecy, furnishes <em>no</em> excuse + whatever to + slaveholders. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal + dispensation. Fifth, that <em>slavery never</em> existed under the + Jewish + dispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed + under the <em>protection of law</em>, and care taken not only to + prevent all + <em>involuntary</em> servitude, but all <em>voluntary perpetual</em> + bondage. Sixth, that slavery in America reduces a <em>man</em> to a + <em>thing</em>, a "chattel personal," <em>robs him</em> of + <em>all</em> his rights as a <em>human being</em>, fetters both his + mind and body, and protects the <em>master</em> in the most unnatural + and unreasonable power, whilst it <em>throws him out</em> of the + protection of law. + Seventh, that slavery is contrary to the example and precepts of our + holy and merciful Redeemer, and of his apostles. + + </p> + <p> + But perhaps you will be ready to query, why appeal to <em>women</em> on + this subject? <em>We</em> do not make the laws which perpetuate + slavery. <em>No</em> legislative power is vested in <em>us; we</em> + can do nothing to overthrow the system, even if we wished to do so. To + this I reply, I know you do not make the laws, but I also know that + <em>you are the wives and mothers, the sisters and daughters of those + who do</em>; and if you really + suppose <em>you</em> can do nothing to overthrow slavery, you are + greatly mistaken. You can do much in every way: four things I will name. + 1st. You can read on this subject. 2d. You can pray over this subject. + + 3d. You can speak on this subject. 4th. You can act on this subject. I have + not placed reading before praying because I regard + it more important, but because, in order to pray right, we must + understand what we are praying for; it is only then we can "pray with + the understanding and the spirit also." + + </p> + <p> + 1. Read then on the subject of slavery. Search the Scriptures + daily, whether the things I have told you are true. Other books and + papers might be a great help to you in this investigation, but they are + not necessary, and it is hardly probable that your Committees of Vigilance + will allow you to have any other. The <em>Bible</em> then is the book + I want you to read in the spirit of inquiry, and the spirit of prayer. + Even the enemies of Abolitionists, acknowledge that their doctrines + are drawn from it. In the great mob in Boston, last autumn, when the books + and papers of the Anti-Slavery Society, were thrown out + of the windows of their office, one individual laid hold of the Bible + and was about tossing it out to the crowd, when another reminded + him that it was the Bible he had in his hand. <em>"Oh! 'tis all + one,"</em> he replied, and out went the sacred volume, along with the + rest. We thank him for the acknowledgment. <em>Yes, "it is all + one,"</em> for our books and papers are mostly commentaries on the + Bible, and the Declaration. Read the <em>Bible</em> then; it + contains the words of Jesus, and they are spirit and life. Judge for + yourselves whether <em>he sanctioned</em> such a system of + oppression and crime. + + </p> + <p> + 2. Pray over this subject. When you have entered into your + closets, and shut to the doors, then pray to your father, who seeth in + secret, that he would open your eyes to see whether slavery is + <em>sinful</em>, and if it is, that he would enable you to bear + a faithful, open and unshrinking + testimony against it, and to do whatsoever your hands find + to do, leaving the consequences entirely to him, who still says to us + whenever we try to reason away duty from the fear of consequences, + <em>"What is that to thee, follow thou me."</em> Pray also for the + poor slave, + that he may be kept patient and submissive under his hard lot, until + God is pleased to open the door of freedom to him without violence + or bloodshed. Pray too for the master that his heart may be softened, + and he made willing to acknowledge, as Joseph's brethren did, "Verily + we are guilty concerning our brother," before he will be compelled to + add in consequence of Divine judgment, "therefore is all this evil + come upon us." Pray also for all your brethren and sisters who are + laboring in the righteous cause of Emancipation in the Northern + States, England and the world. There is great encouragement for + prayer in these words of our Lord. "Whatsoever ye shall ask the + Father in any name, he will give it to you"—Pray then without ceasing, + in the closet and the social circle. + + </p> + <p> + 3. Speak on this subject. It is through the tongue, the pen, and + the press, that truth is principally propagated. Speak then to your + relatives, your friends, your acquaintances on the subject of slavery; + be not afraid if you are conscientiously convinced it is + <em>sinful</em>, to say so openly, but calmly, and to let your + sentiments be known. If you + are served by the slaves of others, try to ameliorate their condition as + + much as possible; never aggravate their faults, and thus add fuel to + the fire of anger already kindled, in a master and mistress's bosom; + remember their extreme ignorance, and consider them as your Heavenly + Father does the <em>less</em> culpable on this account, even when they + do wrong things. Discountenance <em>all</em> cruelty to them, all + starvation, all corporal chastisement; these may brutalize and + <em>break</em> their spirits, + but will never bend them to willing, cheerful obedience. If possible, + see that they are comfortably and <em>seasonably</em> fed, whether + in the house + or the field; it is unreasonable and cruel to expect slaves to wait for + their breakfast until eleven o'clock, when they rise at five or six. Do + all you can, to induce their owners to clothe them well, and to allow + them many little indulgences which would contribute to their comfort. + Above all, try to persuade your husband, father, brothers and sons, + that <em>slavery is a crime against God and man</em>, and that it + is a great sin + to keep <em>human beings</em> in such abject ignorance; to deny + them the privilege of learning to read and write. The Catholics are + universally condemned, for denying the Bible to the common people, but, + <em>slaveholders must not</em> blame them, for <em>they</em> are + doing the <i>very same + thing</i>, and for the very same reason, neither of these systems can + bear the light which bursts from the pages of that Holy Book. And + lastly, endeavour to inculcate submission on the part of the slaves, + but whilst doing this be faithful in pleading the cause of the oppressed. + + </p> + <div class="poem"> + <h3><a name="projectID3ec2855c3002e-div-d0e3791"></a></h3> + <div class="lg">"Will <em>you</em> behold unheeding, <br> Life's holiest feelings crushed, <br>Where <em>woman's</em> heart is bleeding, <br> Shall <em>woman's</em> voice be hushed?"<br><br></div> + </div> + <p> + 4. Act on this subject. Some of you <em>own</em> slaves yourselves. If + you believe slavery is <em>sinful</em>, set them at liberty, "undo the + heavy burdens and let the oppressed go free." If they wish to remain with + you, pay them wages, if not, let them leave you. Should they remain, + teach them, and have them taught the common branches of an English + education; they have minds, and those minds <em>ought to be + improved</em>. So precious a talent as intellect, never was given to + be wrapt in a napkin and buried in the earth. It is the <em>duty</em> + of all, as far as they can, to improve their own mental faculties, because + we are commanded to love God with <em>all our minds</em>, as well as + with all our hearts, and we commit a great sin, if we + <em>forbid or prevent</em> that cultivation of + the mind in others, which would enable them to perform this duty. + Teach your servants, then, to read, &c., and encourage them to believe + it is their <em>duty</em> to learn, if it were only that they might + read the Bible. + + </p> + <p> + But some of you will say, we can neither free our slaves nor teach + them to read, for the laws of our state forbid it. Be not surprised + when I say such wicked laws <em>ought to be no barrier</em> in the + way of your + duty, and I appeal to the Bible to prove this position. What was the + conduct of Shiprah and Puah, when the king of Egypt issued his cruel + mandate, with regard to the Hebrew children? "<em>They</em> feared + <em>God</em>, and did <em>not</em> as the King of Egypt commanded + them, but saved the men children alive." And be it remembered, that it was + through <em>their</em> faithfulness + that Moses was preserved. This great and immediate emancipator + was indebted to a <em>woman</em> for his spared life, and he became + a blessing to the whole Jewish nation. Did these <em>women</em> do + right + + in disobeying that monarch? "<em>Therefore</em> (says the sacred text,) + <i>God + dealt well</i> with them, and made them houses" Ex. i. What was the + conduct of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, when Nebuchadnezzar + set up a golden image in the plain of Dura, and commanded all + people, nations, and languages, to fall down and worship it? "Be it + known, unto thee, (said these faithful <em>Jews</em>) O king, that + <em>we will not</em> + serve thy gods, nor worship the image which thou hast set up." Did + these men <em>do right in disobeying the law</em> of their sovereign? + Let their + miraculous deliverance from the burning fiery furnace, answer; Dan. + iii. What was the conduct of Daniel, when Darius made a firm decree + that no one should ask a petition of any man or God for thirty days? + Did the prophet cease to pray? No! "When Daniel <em>knew that the + writing was signed</em>, he went into his house, and his windows being + <em>open</em> towards Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a + day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime." + Did Daniel do right thus to <em>break</em> the law of his king? Let + his wonderful deliverance out of the mouths of the lions answer; + Dan. vii. Look, too, at the Apostles Peter and John. When the + rulers of the Jews, "<em>commanded them not</em> to speak at all, nor + teach in the name of Jesus," what did they say? "Whether it be right in + the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge + ye." And what did they do? "They spake the word of God with + boldness, and with great power gave the Apostles witness of the + <em>resurrection</em> of the Lord Jesus;" although <em>this</em> + was the very doctrine, for the preaching of which, they had just been cast + into prison, and further threatened. Did these men do right? I leave + <em>you</em> to answer, who now enjoy the benefits of their labors + and sufferings, in that Gospel they dared to preach when positively + commanded <em>not to teach any more</em> in the name of Jesus; Acts iv. + + </p> + <p> + But some of you may say, if we do free our slaves, they will be + taken up and sold, therefore there will be no use in doing it. Peter + and John might just as well have said, we will not preach the gospel, + for if we do, we shall be taken up and put in prison, therefore there + will be no use in our preaching. <em>Consequences</em>, my friends, + belong no more to <em>you</em>, than they did to these apostles. Duty + is ours and events are God's. If you think slavery is sinful, all + <em>you</em> have to do is to set your slaves at liberty, do all you + can to protect them, and in humble faith and fervent prayer, commend them + to your common Father. He can take care of them; but if for wise purposes + he sees fit to allow them to be sold, this will afford you an opportunity + of testifying openly, wherever you go, against the crime of + <i>manstealing</i>. Such an act will be <em>clear + robbery</em>, and if exposed, might, under the Divine + direction, do the cause of Emancipation more good, than any thing + that could happen, for, "He makes even the wrath of man to praise + him, and the remainder of wrath he will restrain." + + </p> + <p> + I know that this doctrine of obeying <em>God</em>, rather than man, + will be considered as dangerous, and heretical by many, but I am not afraid + openly to avow it, because it is the doctrine of the Bible; but I would + not be understood to advocate resistance to any law however oppressive, + + if, in obeying it, I was not obliged to commit <em>sin</em>. If for + instance, there was a law, which imposed imprisonment or a fine + upon me if I manumitted a slave, I would on no account resist that + law, I would set the slave free, and then go to prison or suffer the + penalty. If a law commands me to <em>sin I will break it</em>; if it + calls me to <em>suffer</em>, I will let it take its + course <i>unresistingly</i>. The doctrine of + blind obedience and unqualified submission to <em>any human</em> power, + whether civil or ecclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism, and ought + to have no place among Republicans and Christians. + + </p> + <p> + But you will perhaps say, such a course of conduct would inevitably expose + us to great suffering. Yes! my christian friends, I believe it would, but + this will <em>not</em> excuse you or any one else for the + neglect of <em>duty</em>. If Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, and + Reformers had not been willing to suffer for the truth's sake, where would + the world have been now? If they had said, we cannot speak the truth, + we cannot do what we believe is right, because the + <em>laws of our country or public opinion are against us</em>, where + would our holy religion have been now? The Prophets were stoned, imprisoned, + and killed by the Jews. And why? Because they exposed and openly rebuked + public sins; they opposed public opinion; had they held their peace, + they all might have lived in ease and died in favor with a wicked + generation. Why were the Apostles persecuted from city to city, stoned, + incarcerated, beaten, and crucified? Because they dared to <em>speak the + truth</em>; to tell the Jews, boldly and fearlessly, that + <em>they</em> were the <em>murderers</em> of the Lord of Glory, + and that, however great a stumbling-block the Cross might be to them, there + was no other name given under heaven by which men could be saved, but the + name of Jesus. Because they declared, even at Athens, the seat of learning + and refinement, the self-evident truth, that "they be no gods that are made + with men's hands", and exposed to the Grecians the foolishness of + worldly wisdom, and the impossibility of salvation but through Christ, + whom they despised on account of the ignominious death he died. + Because at Rome, the proud mistress of the world, they thundered + out the terrors of the law upon that idolatrous, war-making, and + slave-holding community. Why were the martyrs stretched upon the + rack, gibbetted and burnt, the scorn and diversion of a Nero, whilst + their tarred and burning bodies sent up a light which illuminated the + Roman capital? Why were the Waldenses hunted like wild beasts + upon the mountains of Piedmont, and slain with the sword of the + Duke of Savoy and the proud monarch of France? Why were the + Presbyterians chased like the partridge over the highlands of + Scotland—the Methodists pumped, and stoned, and pelted with rotten + eggs—the Quakers incarcerated in filthy prisons, beaten, whipped at + the cart's tail, banished and hung? Because they dared to <em>speak</em> + the <em>truth</em>, to <em>break</em> the unrighteous + <em>laws</em> of their country, and chose rather to suffer affliction + with the people of God, "not accepting deliverance," even under the + gallows. Why were Luther and Calvin persecuted and excommunicated, Cranmer, + Ridley, and Latimer burnt? Because they fearlessly proclaimed the truth, + though that truth was + + contrary to public opinion, and the authority of Ecclesiastical councils + and conventions. Now all this vast amount of human suffering + might have been saved. All these Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, + and Reformers, might have lived and died in peace with all men, but + following the example of their great pattern, "they despised the + shame, endured the cross, and are now set down on the right hand + of the throne of God," having received the glorious welcome of "well + <em>done</em> good and faithful servants, enter ye into the joy + of your Lord." + + </p> + <p> + But you may say we are <em>women</em>, how can <em>our</em> hearts + endure persecution? And why not? Have not <em>women</em> arisen in + all the dignity and strength of moral courage to be the leaders of the + people, and to bear a faithful testimony for the truth whenever the + providence of God has called them to do so? Are there no <em>women</em> + in that noble army of martyrs who are now singing the song of Moses and the + Lamb? Who led out the women of Israel from the house of bondage, striking + the timbrel, and singing the song of deliverance on the banks of that sea + whose waters stood up like walls of crystal to open a passage for their + escape? It was a <em>woman</em>; Miriam, the prophetess, + the sister of Moses and Aaron. Who went up with Barak to + Kadesh to fight against Jabin, King of Canaan, into whose hand + Israel had been sold because of their iniquities? It was a + <em>woman</em>! Deborah the wife of Lapidoth, the judge, as well as + the prophetess of that backsliding people; Judges iv, 9. Into whose hands + was Sisera, the captain of Jabin's host delivered? Into the hand of a + <em>woman</em>. Jael the wife of Heber! Judges vi, 21. Who dared to + <em>speak the truth</em> concerning those judgments which were coming + upon Judea, when Josiah, alarmed at finding that his people "had not kept + the word of the Lord to do after all that was written in the book of + the Law," sent to enquire of the Lord concerning these things? It + was a <em>woman</em>. Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum; 2, + Chron. xxxiv, 22. Who was chosen to deliver the whole Jewish + nation from that murderous decree of Persia's King, which wicked + Haman had obtained by calumny and fraud? It was a <em>woman</em>; + Esther the Queen; yes, weak and trembling <em>woman</em> was the + instrument appointed by God, to reverse the bloody mandate of the eastern + monarch, and save the <em>whole visible church</em> from destruction. + What human voice first proclaimed to Mary that she should be the mother + of our Lord? It was a <em>woman</em>! Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias; + Luke i, 42, 43. Who united with the good old Simeon in giving + thanks publicly in the temple, when the child, Jesus, was presented + there by his parents, "and spake of him to all them that looked for + redemption in Jerusalem?" It was a <em>woman</em>! Anna the prophetess. + Who first proclaimed Christ as the true Messiah in the streets of Samaria, + once the capital of the ten tribes? It was a <em>woman</em>! Who + ministered to the Son of God whilst on earth, a despised and persecuted + Reformer, in the humble garb of a carpenter? They were + <em>women</em>! Who followed the rejected King of Israel, as his + fainting footsteps trod the road to Calvary? "A great company of people + and of <em>women</em>;" and it is remarkable that to + <em>them alone</em>, he turned + + and addressed the pathetic language, "Daughters of Jerusalem + weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and your children." Ah! + who sent unto the Roman Governor when he was set down on the + judgment seat, saying unto him, "Have thou nothing to do with that + just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because + of him?" It was a <em>woman</em>! the wife of Pilate. + Although "<em>he knew</em> that for envy the Jews had delivered + Christ," yet <em>he</em> consented to surrender the Son of God into + the hands of a brutal soldiery, after having himself scourged his naked + body. Had the <em>wife</em> of Pilate sat upon that judgment seat, + what would have been the result of the trial of this "just person?" + + </p> + <p> + And who last hung round the cross of Jesus on the mountain + of Golgotha? Who first visited the sepulchre early in the morning + on the first day of the week, carrying sweet spices to embalm his + precious body, not knowing that it was incorruptible and could not + be holden by the bands of death? These were <em>women</em>! To whom + did he <em>first</em> appear after his resurrection? It was to a + <em>woman</em>! Mary Magdalene; Mark xvi, 9. Who gathered with the + apostles to wait at Jerusalem, in prayer and supplication, for "the + promise of the Father;" the spiritual blessing of the Great High Priest + of his Church, who had entered, <em>not</em> into the splendid + temple of Solomon, there to offer the blood of bulls, and of goats, and + the smoking censer upon the golden altar, but into Heaven itself, there + to present his intercessions, after having "given himself for us, an + offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor?" + <em>Women</em> were among that holy company; Acts i, 14. And did + <em>women</em> wait in vain? Did those who had ministered to his + necessities, followed in his train, and wept at his crucifixion, wait + in vain? No! No! Did the cloven tongues of fire descend upon the heads + of <em>women</em> as well as men? Yes, my friends, "it sat upon + <em>each one of them</em>;" Acts ii, 3. <em>Women</em> + as well as men were to be living stones in the temple of grace, + and therefore <em>their</em> heads were consecrated by the descent of + the Holy Ghost as well as those of men. Were <em>women</em> recognized + as fellow laborers in the gospel field? They were! Paul says in his + epistle to the Philippians, "help those <em>women</em> who labored + with me, in the gospel;" Phil. iv, 3. + + </p> + <p> + But this is not all. Roman <em>women</em> were burnt at the stake, + <i>their</i> delicate limbs were torn joint from + joint by the ferocious beasts of the Ampitheatre, and tossed by the wild + bull in his fury, for the diversion of that idolatrous, warlike, and + slaveholding people. Yes, <em>women</em> suffered + under the ten persecutions of heathen Rome, with the most unshrinking + constancy and fortitude; not all the entreaties of friends, + nor the claims of new born infancy, nor the cruel threats of enemies + could make <em>them</em> sprinkle one grain of incense upon the + altars of Roman idols. Come now with me to the beautiful valleys of + Piedmont. Whose blood stains the green sward, and decks the wild flowers + with colors not their own, and smokes on the sword of persecuting France? + It is <em>woman's</em>, as well as man's? Yes, <em>women</em> were + accounted as sheep for the slaughter, and were cut down as the tender + saplings of the wood. + + </p> + <p> + But time would fail me, to tell of all those hundreds and thousands + of <em>women</em>, who perished in the Low countries of Holland, + when Alva's sword of vengeance was unsheathed against the Protestants, when + the Catholic Inquisitions of Europe became the merciless executioners + of vindictive wrath, upon those who dared to worship God, instead + of bowing down in unholy adoration before "my Lord God the + <em>Pope</em>," and when England, too, burnt her Ann Ascoes at + the stake of martyrdom. Suffice it to say, that the Church, after + having been driven from Judea to Rome, and from Rome to Piedmont, and + from Piedmont to England, and from England to Holland, at last stretched + her fainting wings over the dark bosom of the Atlantic, and found on + the shores of a great wilderness, a refuge from tyranny and + oppression—as she thought, but <em>even here</em>, (the warm + blush of shame mantles my cheek as I write it,) <em>even here, + woman</em> was beaten and banished, imprisoned, + and hung upon the gallows, a trophy to the Cross. + And what, I would ask in conclusion, have <em>women</em> done for + the great and glorious cause of Emancipation? Who wrote that pamphlet + which moved the heart of Wilberforce to pray over the wrongs, and his + tongue to plead the cause of the oppressed African? It was a + <em>woman</em>, Elizabeth Heyrick. Who labored assiduously to keep + the sufferings of the slave continually before the British public? They + were <em>women</em>. And how did they do it? By their needles, paint + brushes and pens, by speaking the truth, and petitioning Parliament for + the abolition of slavery. And what was the effect of their labors? + Read it in the Emancipation bill of Great Britain. Read it, in the present + state of her West India Colonies. Read it, in the impulse which has been + given to the cause of freedom, in the United States of America. + Have English women then done so much for the negro, and shall + American women do nothing? Oh no! Already are there sixty female + Anti-Slavery Societies in operation. These are doing just what the + English women did, telling the story of the colored man's wrongs, + praying for his deliverance, and presenting his kneeling image constantly + before the public eye on bags and needle-books, card-racks, + pen-wipers, pin-cushions, &c. Even the children of the north are + inscribing on their handy work, "May the points of our needles prick + the slaveholder's conscience." Some of the reports of these Societies + exhibit not only considerable talent, but a deep sense of religious + duty, and a determination to persevere through evil as well as good + report, until every scourge, and every shackle, is buried under the + feet of the manumitted slave. + + </p> + <p> + The Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society of Boston was called last fall, to a + severe trial of their faith and constancy. They were mobbed by "the + gentlemen of property and standing," in that city at their anniversary + meeting, and their lives were jeoparded by an infuriated crowd; but + their conduct on that occasion did credit to our sex, and affords a full + assurance that they will <em>never</em> abandon the cause of the slave. + The pamphlet, Right and Wrong in Boston, issued by them in which a + particular account is given of that "mob of broad cloth in broad day," + does equal credit to the head and the heart of her who wrote it. I + + wish my Southern sisters could read it; they would then understand + that the women of the North have engaged in this work from a sense + of <em>religious duty</em>, and that nothing will ever induce them + to take their hands from it until it is fully accomplished. They feel + no hostility to you, no bitterness or wrath; they rather sympathize in + your trials and difficulties; but they well know that the first thing to + be done to help you, is to pour in the light of truth on your minds, to + urge you to reflect on, and pray over the subject. This is all + <em>they</em> can do for you, <em>you</em> must work out your own + deliverance with fear and trembling, and with the direction and blessing + of God, <em>you can do it</em>. Northern women may labor + to produce a correct public opinion at the North, but if Southern women sit + down in listless indifference and criminal idleness, public opinion cannot + be rectified and purified at the South. It is manifest to every reflecting + mind, that slavery must be abolished; the era in which we live, and the + light which is overspreading the whole world on this subject, clearly show + that the time cannot be distant when it will be done. Now there are only + two ways in which it can be effected, by moral power or physical force, + and it is for <em>you</em> to choose which of these you prefer. + Slavery always has, and always will produce insurrections wherever it + exists, because it is a violation of the natural order of things, and no + human power can much longer perpetuate it. The opposers of abolitionists + fully believe this; one of them remarked to me not long since, there is no + doubt there will be a most terrible overturning at the South in a few + years, such cruelty and wrong, must be visited with Divine vengeance soon. + Abolitionists believe, too, that this must inevitably be the case if you + do not repent, and they are not willing to leave you to perish without + entreating you, to save yourselves from destruction; well may they say + with the apostle, "am I then your enemy because I tell you the truth," + and warn you to flee from impending judgments. + + </p> + <p> + But why, my dear friends, have I thus been endeavoring to lead you + through the history of more than three thousand years, and to point + you to that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before, "from + works to rewards?" Have I been seeking to magnify the sufferings, + and exalt the character of woman, that she "might have praise of + men?" No! no! my object has been to arouse <em>you</em>, as the wives + and mothers, the daughters and sisters, of the South, to a sense of + your duty as <em>women</em>, and as Christian women, on that great + subject, which has already shaken our country, from the St. Lawrence and + the lakes, to the Gulf of Mexico, and from the Mississippi to the + shores of the Atlantic; <em>and will continue mightily to shake it</em>, + until the polluted temple of slavery fall and crumble into ruin. I would say + unto each one of you, "what meanest thou, O sleeper! arise and call + upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us that we perish + not." Perceive you not that dark cloud of vengeance which hangs + over our boasting Republic? Saw you not the lightnings of Heaven's wrath, + in the flame which leaped from the Indian's torch to the + roof of yonder dwelling, and lighted with its horrid glare the darkness + of midnight? Heard you not the thunders of Divine anger, as the distant + + roar of the cannon came rolling onward, from the Texian country, + where Protestant American Rebels are fighting with Mexican + Republicans—for what? For the re-establishment of + <em>slavery</em>; yes! of American slavery in the bosom of a Catholic + Republic, where that system of robbery, violence, and wrong, had been + legally abolished for twelve years. Yes! citizens of the United States, + after plundering Mexico of her land, are now engaged in deadly conflict, + for the privilege of fastening chains, and collars, and manacles—upon + whom? upon the subjects of some foreign prince? No! upon native born + American Republican citizens, although the fathers of these very men + declared to the whole world, while struggling to free themselves from + the three penny taxes of an English king, that they believed it to be + a <em>self-evident</em> truth that <em>all men</em> were created + equal, and had an <i>unalienable right to liberty</i>. + + </p> + <p> + Well may the poet exclaim in bitter sarcasm, + + </p> + <div class="poem"> + <h3><a name="projectID3ec2855c3002e-div-d0e4174"></a></h3> + <div class="lg">"The fustian flag that proudly waves<br>In solemn mockery o'er <em>a land of slaves</em>."<br><br></div> + </div> + <p> + Can you not, my friends, understand the signs of the times; do you + not see the sword of retributive justice hanging over the South, or + are you still slumbering at your posts?—Are there no Shiphrahs, no + Puahs among you, who will dare in Christian firmness and Christian + meekness, to refuse to obey the <em>wicked laws</em> which require + <em>woman to enslave, to degrade and to brutalize woman</em>? Are there + no Miriams, who would rejoice to lead out the captive daughters of the + Southern States to liberty and light? Are there no Huldahs there who will + dare to <em>speak the truth</em> concerning the sins of the people and + those judgments, which it requires no prophet's eye to see, must follow if + repentance is not speedily sought? Is there no Esther among you + who will plead for the poor devoted slave? Read the history of this + Persian queen, it is full of instruction; she at first refused to plead + for the Jews; but, hear the words of Mordecai, "Think not within + thyself, that <em>thou</em> shalt escape in the king's house more + than all the Jews, for <em>if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this + time</em>, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews + from another place: but <em>thou and thy father's house shall be + destroyed</em>." Listen, too, to her magnanimous reply to this powerful + appeal; "<em>I will</em> go in unto the king, which is + <em>not</em> according to law, and if I perish, I perish." + Yes! if there were but <em>one</em> Esther at the South, she + <em>might</em> save her country from ruin; but let the Christian women + there arise, as the Christian women of Great Britain did, in the majesty + of moral power, and that salvation is certain. Let them embody themselves + in societies, and send petitions up to their different legislatures, + entreating their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons, to abolish the + institution of slavery; no longer to subject <em>woman</em> to the + scourge and the chain, to mental darkness and moral degradation; no longer + to tear husbands from their wives, and children from their parents; no + longer to make men, women, and children, work <em>without wages</em>; + no longer to make their lives bitter in hard bondage; no longer to + reduce <em>American citizens</em> + to the abject condition of <em>slaves</em>, of "chattels personal;" no + longer to barter the <em>image of God</em> in human shambles for + corruptible things such as silver and gold. + + </p> + <p> + The <em>women of the South can overthrow</em> this horrible system + of oppression and cruelty, licentiousness and wrong. Such appeals to + your legislatures would be irresistible, for there is something in the + heart of man which <em>will bend under moral suasion</em>. There is a + swift witness for truth in his bosom, which <em>will respond to + truth</em> when it is uttered with calmness and dignity. If you could + obtain but six signatures to such a petition in only one state, I would + say, send up that petition, and be not in the least discouraged by the + scoffs and jeers of the heartless, or the resolution of the house to lay + it on the table. It will be a great thing if the subject can be + introduced into your legislatures in any way, even by <em>women</em>, + and <em>they</em> will be the most likely to introduce it there in + the best possible manner, as a matter of <em>morals</em> and + <em>religion</em>, not of expediency or politics. You may + petition, too, the different ecclesiastical bodies of the slave states. + Slavery must be attacked with the whole power of truth and the + sword of the spirit. You must take it up on <em>Christian</em> ground, + and fight against it with Christian weapons, whilst your feet are shod with + the preparation of the gospel of peace. And <em>you are now</em> loudly + called upon by the cries of the widow and the orphan, to arise and + gird yourselves for this great moral conflict "with the whole armour + of righteousness on the right hand and on the left." + + </p> + <p> + There is every encouragement for you to labor and pray, my + friends, because the abolition of slavery as well as its existence, has + been the theme of prophecy. "Ethiopia (says the Psalmist) shall + stretch forth her hands unto God." And is she not now doing so? + Are not the Christian negroes of the south lifting their hands in prayer + for deliverance, just as the Israelites did when their redemption was + drawing nigh? Are they not sighing and crying by reason of the + hard bondage? And think you, that He, of whom it was said, "and + God heard their groaning, and their cry came up unto him by reason + of the hard bondage," think you that his ear is heavy that he cannot + <em>now</em> hear the cries of his suffering children? Or that He who + raised up a Moses, an Aaron, and a Miriam, to bring them up out of the + land of Egypt from the house of bondage, cannot now, with a high + hand and a stretched out arm, rid the poor negroes out of the hands + of their masters? Surely you believe that his arm is <em>not</em> + shortened that he cannot save. And would not such a work of mercy redound + to his glory? But another string of the harp of prophecy vibrates to + the song of deliverance: "But they shall sit every man under his + vine, and under his fig-tree, and <em>none shall make them afraid</em>; + for the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it." The <em>slave</em> + never can do this as long as he is a <em>slave</em>; whilst he is a + "chattel personal" he can own <em>no</em> property; but the time + <em>is to come</em> when <em>every</em> man is to sit under + <em>his own</em> vine and <em>his own</em> fig-tree, and no + domineering driver, or irresponsible master, or irascible mistress, + shall make him afraid of the chain or the whip. Hear, too, the sweet + tones of another + + string: "Many shall run to and fro, and <em>knowledge</em> shall be + increased." Slavery is an insurmountable barrier to the increase of + knowledge in every community where it exists; <em>slavery, then, must be + abolished before</em> this prediction can be fulfilled. The last chord + I shall touch, will be this, "They shall <em>not</em> hurt nor destroy + in all my holy mountain." + + </p> + <p><em>Slavery, then, must be overthrown before</em> the prophecies can + be accomplished, but how are they to be fulfilled? Will the wheels of the + millennial car be rolled onward by miraculous power? No! God + designs to confer this holy privilege upon <em>woman</em>; it is + through <em>their</em> instrumentality + that the great and glorious work of reforming the world + is to be done. And see you not how the mighty engine of + <em>moral power</em> + is dragging in its rear the Bible and peace societies, anti-slavery + and temperance, sabbath schools, moral reform, and missions? + or to adopt another figure, do not these seven philanthropic associations + compose the beautiful tints in that bow of promise which spans + the arch of our moral heaven? Who does not believe, that if these + societies were broken up, their constitutions burnt, and the vast + machinery with which they are laboring to regenerate mankind was + stopped, that the black clouds of vengeance would soon, burst over + our world, and every city would witness the fate of the devoted cities + of the plain? Each one of these societies is walking abroad through + the earth scattering the seeds of truth over the wide field of our + world, not with the hundred hands of a Briareus, but with a hundred + thousand. + + </p> + <p> + Another encouragement for you to labor, my friends, is, that you + will have the prayers and co-operation of English and Northern + philanthropists. You will never bend your knees in supplication at the + throne of grace for the overthrow of slavery, without meeting there + the spirits of other Christians, who will mingle their voices with yours, + as the morning or evening sacrifice ascends to God. Yes, the spirit + of prayer and of supplication has been poured out upon many, many + hearts; there are wrestling Jacobs who will not let go of the prophetic + promises of deliverance for the captive, and the opening, of prison doors + to them that are bound. There are Pauls who are saying, in reference + to this subject, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" There are + Marys sitting in the house now, who are ready to arise and go forth + in this work as soon as the message is brought, "the master is come + and calleth for thee." And there are Marthas, too, who have already + gone out to meet Jesus, as he bends his footsteps to their brother's + grave, and weeps, <em>not</em> over the lifeless body of Lazarus + bound hand and foot in grave-clothes, but over the politically and + intellectually lifeless slave, bound hand and foot in the iron chains + of oppression and + ignorance. Some may be ready to say, as Martha did, who seemed + to expect nothing but sympathy from Jesus, "Lord, by this time he + stinketh, for he hath been dead four days." She thought it useless + to remove the stone and expose the loathsome body of her brother; + she could not believe that so great a miracle could be wrought, as to + raise <em>that putrified body</em> into life; but "Jesus said, take + <em>ye</em> away the + + stone;" and when <em>they</em> had taken away the stone where the dead + was laid, and uncovered the body of Lazarus, then it was that "Jesus + lifted up his eyes and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard + me," &c. "And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud voice, + Lazarus, come forth." Yes, some may be ready to say of the + colored race, how can <em>they</em> ever be raised politically and + intellectually, they have been dead four hundred years? But <em>we</em> + have <em>nothing</em> to do with <em>how</em> this is to be done; + <em>our business</em> is to take away the + stone which has covered up the dead body of our brother, to expose + the putrid carcass, to show <em>how</em> that body has been bound with + the grave-clothes of heathen ignorance, and his face with the napkin of + prejudice, and having done all it was our duty to do, to stand by + the negro's grave, in humble faith and holy hope, waiting to hear + the life-giving command of "Lazarus, come forth." This is just + what Anti-Slavery Societies are doing; they are taking away the + stone from the mouth of the tomb of slavery, where lies the putrid + carcass of our brother. They want the pure light of heaven to shine + into that dark and gloomy cave; they want all men to see <em>how</em> + that dead body has been bound, <em>how</em> that face has been wrapped + in the <em>napkin of prejudice</em>; and shall they wait beside that + grave in vain? Is not Jesus still the resurrection and the life? Did He + come to proclaim liberty to the captive, and the opening of prison doors + to them that are bound, in vain? Did He promise to give beauty for ashes, + the oil of joy for mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit + of heaviness unto them that mourn in Zion, and will He refuse to + beautify the mind, anoint the head, and throw around the captive + negro the mantle of praise for that spirit of heaviness which has so + long bowed him down to the ground? Or shall we not rather say + with the prophet, "the zeal of the Lord of Hosts <em>will</em> perform + this?" Yes, his promises are sure, and amen in Christ Jesus, that he will + assemble her that halteth, and gather her that is driven out, and her + that is afflicted. + + </p> + <p> + But I will now say a few words on the subject of Abolitionism. + Doubtless you have all heard Anti-Slavery Societies denounced as + insurrectionary and mischievous, fanatical and dangerous. It has + been said they publish the most abominable untruths, and that they + are endeavoring to excite rebellions at the South. Have you believed + these reports, my friends? have <em>you</em> also been deceived by these false + assertions? Listen to me, then, whilst I endeavor to wipe from the + fair character of Abolitionism such unfounded accusations. You + know that <em>I</em> am a Southerner: your know that my dearest + relatives are now in a slave State. Can you for a moment believe I + would prove so recreant to the feelings of a daughter and a sister, + as to join a society which seeking to overthrow slavery by falsehood, + bloodshed and murder? I appeal to you who have known and loved me + in days that are passed, can <em>you</em> believe it? No! my + friends. As a Carolinian, I was peculiarly jealous of any movements + on this subject; and before I would join an Anti-Slavery Society, I + took the precaution + + of becoming acquainted with some of the leading Abolitionists, + of reading their publications and attending their meetings, at which I + heard addresses both from colored and white men; and it was not + until I was fully convinced that their principles were <em>entirely + pacific,</em> and their efforts <em>only moral,</em> that I + gave my name as a member to the Female Anti-Slavery Society of + Philadelphia. Since that time, I have regularly taken the Liberator, + and read many Anti-Slavery pamphlets and papers and books, and can + assure you I <em>never</em> have seen a single + insurrectionary paragraph, and never read any account of cruelty + which I could not believe. Southerners may deny the truth of these + accounts, but why do they not <em>prove</em> them to be false. + Their violent expressions of horror at such accounts being + believed, <em>may</em> deceive some, but they cannot deceive + <em>me,</em> for I lived too long in the midst of + slavery, not to know what slavery is. Such declarations remind me + of an assertion made by a Catholic priest, who said that his Church + had never persecuted Protestants for their religion, when it is well + known that the pages of history are black with the crimes of the + Inquisition. Oh! if the slaves of the South could only write a book, + it would vie, I have no doubt, with the horrible details of Catholic + cruelty. When <em>I</em> speak of this system, "I speak that I + do know," and I am not afraid to assert, that Anti-Slavery + publications have <em>not</em> overdrawn the monstrous features of + slavery at all. And many a Southerner <em>knows</em> this as well + as I do. A lady in North Carolina remarked to a friend of mine, about + eighteen months since, "Northerners know nothing at all about slavery; + they think it is perpetual bondage only; but of the <em>depth of + degradation</em> that word involves, they have no conception; + if they had, <em>they would never cease</em> their efforts until + so <em>horrible</em> a system was overthrown." She did not, know + how faithfully some Northern men and Northern women had studied this + subject; how diligently they had searched out the cause of "him who + had none to help him," and how fearlessly they had told the story of + the negro's wrongs. Yes, Northerners know <em>every</em> thing + about slavery now. This monster of iniquity has been unveiled to the + world, his frightful features unmasked, and soon, very soon, will he be + regarded with no more complacency by the American republic than is + the idol of Juggernaut, rolling its bloody wheels over the crushed + bodies of its prostrate victims. + + </p> + <p> + But you will probably ask, if Anti-Slavery societies are not + insurrectionary, why do Northerners tell us they are! Why, I would ask + you in return, did Northern senators and Northern representatives + give their votes, at the last sitting of congress, to the admission of + Arkansas Territory as a slave state? Take those men, one by one, and + ask them in their parlours, do you <em>approve of slavery?</em> + ask them on <em>Northern</em> ground, where they will speak the + truth, and I doubt not <em>every man</em> of them will tell you, + <em>no</em>! Why then, I ask, did <em>they</em> give + their votes to enlarge the mouth of that grave which has already + destroyed its tens of thousands! All our enemies tell <em>us</em> + they are as much anti slavery as we are. Yes, my friends, thousands + who are helping you to bind the fetters of slavery on the negro, + despise you in their hearts for doing it; they rejoice that such an + institution has not been entailed upon them. Why then, I would ask, + do <em>they</em> lend you their help? I will tell you, "they love + <em>the praise of men more</em> than the praise of God." The + Abolition cause has not yet become so popular as to induce them to + believe, that by advocating it in congress, they shall sit still more + securely in their seats there, and like + + the <em>chief rulers</em> in the days of our Saviour, though + <em>many</em> believed on him, yet they did <em>not</em> + confess him, lest they should <em>be put out of the + synagogue</em>; John xii, 42, 43. Or perhaps like Pilate, thinking + they could prevail nothing, and fearing a tumult, they determined to + release Barabbas and surrender the just man, the poor innocent slave + to be stripped of his rights and scourged. In vain will such men try + to wash their hands, and say, with the Roman governor, "I am innocent + of the blood of this just person." Northern American statesmen + are no more innocent of the crime of slavery, than Pilate was of the + murder of Jesus, or Saul of that of Stephen. These are high charges, + but I appeal to <em>their hearts</em>; I appeal to public opinion + ten years from now. Slavery then is a national sin. + + </p> + <p> + But you will say, a great many other Northerners tell us so, who + can have no political motives. The interests of the North, you must + know, my friends, are very closely combined with those of the South. + The Northern merchants and manufacturers are making + <em>their</em> fortunes out of the <em>produce of slave + labor</em>; the grocer is selling your rice and + sugar; how then can these men bear a testimony against slavery + without condemning themselves? But there is another reason, the + North is most dreadfully afraid of Amalgamation. She is alarmed + at the very idea of a thing so monstrous, as she thinks. And lest + this consequence <em>might</em> flow from emancipation, she is + determined to resist all efforts at emancipation without expatriation. + It is not because she <em>approves of slavery</em>, or believes + it to be "the corner stone of our republic," for she is as much + <em>anti-slavery</em> as we are; but amalgamation is too horrible + to think of. Now I would ask <em>you</em>, is it right, is it + generous, to refuse the colored people in this country the advantages + of education and the privilege, or rather the <em>right</em>, to + follow honest trades and callings merely because they are colored? + The same prejudice exists here against our colored brethren that + existed against the Gentiles in Judea. Great numbers cannot bear + the idea of equality, and fearing lest, if they had the same + advantages we enjoy, they would become as intelligent, as moral, as + religious, and as respectable and wealthy, they are determined to + keep them as low as they possibly can. Is this doing as they would + be done by? Is this loving their neighbor as <em>themselves</em>? + Oh! that <em>such</em> opposers of Abolitionism would put their + souls in the stead of the free colored man's and obey the apostolic + injunction, to "remember them that are in bonds <em>as bound with + them</em>." I will leave you to judge whether the fear of + amalgamation ought to induce men to oppose anti-slavery efforts, + when <em>they</em> believe <em>slavery</em> to be + <em>sinful</em>. Prejudice against color, is the most powerful + enemy we have to fight with at the North. + + </p> + <p> + You need not be surprised, then, at all, at what is said + <em>against</em> Abolitionists by the North, for they are wielding + a two-edged sword, which even here, cuts through the <em>cords of + caste</em>, on the one side, and the <em>bonds of interest</em> + on the other. They are only sharing the fate of other reformers, + abused and reviled whilst they are in the minority; but they are + neither angry nor discouraged by the invective which has been heaped + upon them by slaveholders at the South and + + their apologists at the North. They know that when George Fox + and William Edmundson were laboring in behalf of the negroes in + the West Indies in 1671 that the very <em>same</em> slanders were + propogated against them, which are <em>now</em> circulated against + Abolitionists. Although it was well known that Fox was the founder of + a religious sect which repudiated <em>all</em> war, and + <em>all</em> violence, yet <em>even he</em> was + accused of "endeavoring to excite the slaves to insurrection and of + teaching the negroes to cut their master's throats." And these two + men who had their feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of + Peace, were actually compelled to draw up a formal declaration that + <em>they were not</em> trying to raise a rebellion in Barbadoes. + It is also worthy of remark that these Reformers did not at this time + see the necessity of emancipation under seven years, and their + principal efforts were exerted to persuade the planters of the + necessity of instructing their slaves; but the slaveholder saw then, + just what the slaveholder sees now, that an <em>enlightened</em> + population <em>never</em> can be a <em>slave</em> population, + and therefore they passed a law that negroes should + not even attend the meetings of Friends. Abolitionists know that the + life of Clarkson was sought by slavetraders, and that even Wilberforce + was denounced on the floor of Parliament as a fanatic and a + hypocrite by the present King of England, the very man who, in 1834 + set his seal to that instrument which burst the fetters of eight + hundred thousand slaves in his West India colonies. They know that + the first Quaker who bore a <em>faithful</em> testimony against + the sin of slavery was cut off from religious fellowship with that + society. That Quaker was a <em>woman</em>. On her deathbed she + sent for the committee who dealt with her—she told them, the near + approach of death had not altered her sentiments on the subject of + slavery and waving her hand towards a very fertile and beautiful + portion of country which lay stretched before her window, she said + with great solemnity, "Friends, the time will come when there will not + be friends enough in all this district to hold one meeting for + worship, and this garden will be turned into a wilderness." + + </p> + <p> + The aged friend, who with tears in his eyes, related this interesting + circumstance to me, remarked, that at that time there were seven + meetings of friends in that part of Virginia, but that when he was + there ten years ago, not a single meeting was held, and the country + was literally a desolation. Soon after her decease, John Woolman + began his labors in our society, and instead of disowning a member + for testifying <em>against</em> slavery, they have for sixty-two + years positively forbidden their members to hold slaves. + + </p> + <p> + Abolitionists understand the slaveholding spirit too well to be + surprised at any thing that has yet happened at the South or the + North; they know that the greater the sin is, which is exposed, the + more violent will be the efforts to blacken the character and impugn + the motives of those who are engaged in bringing to light the hidden + things of darkness. They understand the work of Reform too well to be + driven back by the furious waves of opposition, which are only foaming + out their own shame. They have stood "the world's dread + + laugh," when only twelve men formed the first Anti-Slavery Society + in Boston in 1831. They have faced and refuted the calumnies of + their enemies, and proved themselves to be emphatically + <em>peace men</em> by <em>never resisting</em> the violence of + mobs, even when driven by them from the temple of God, and dragged by + an infuriated crowd through the streets of the emporium of + New-England, or subjected by <em>slaveholders</em> + to the pain of corporal punishment. "None of these things move + them;" and, by the grace of God, they are determined to persevere + in this work of faith and labor of love: they mean to pray, and + preach, and write, and print, until slavery is completely overthrown, + until Babylon is taken up and cast into the sea, to "be found no + more at all." They mean to petition Congress year after year, until + the seat of our government is cleansed from the sinful traffic of + "slaves and the souls of men." Although that august assembly may + be like the unjust judge who "feared not God neither regarded man," + yet it <em>must</em> yield just as he did, from the power of + importunity. Like the unjust judge, Congress <em>must</em> redress + the wrongs of the widow, lest by the continual coming up of petitions, + it be wearied. This will be striking the dagger into the very heart of + the monster, and once this done, he must soon expire. + + </p> + <p> + Abolitionists have been accused of abusing their Southern brethren. + Did the prophet Isaiah <em>abuse</em> the Jews when he addressed + to them the cutting reproof contained in the first chapter of his + prophecies, and ended by telling them, they would be + <em>ashamed</em> of the oaks they had desired, and + <em>confounded</em> for the garden they had chosen? Did John the + Baptist <em>abuse</em> the Jews when he called them "<em>a + generation of vipers</em>," and warned them "to bring forth fruits + meet for repentance!" Did Peter abuse the Jews when he told them they + were the murderers of the Lord of Glory? Did Paul abuse the Roman + Governor when he reasoned before him of righteousness, temperance, + and judgment, so as to send conviction home to his guilty heart, and + cause him to tremble in view of the crimes he was living in? Surely + not. No man will <em>now</em> accuse the prophets and apostles of + <em>abuse</em>, but what have Abolitionists done more than they? + No doubt the Jews thought the prophets and apostles in their day, just + as harsh and uncharitable as slaveholders now, think Abolitionists; if + they did not, why did they beat, and stone, and kill them? + + </p> + <p> + Great fault has been found with the prints which have been employed + to expose slavery at the North, but my friends, how could this + be done so effectively in any other way? Until the pictures of the + slave's sufferings were drawn and held up to public gaze, no + Northerner had any idea of the cruelty of the system, it never + entered their minds that such abominations could exist in Christian, + Republican America; they never suspected that many of the + <em>gentlemen</em> and <em>ladies</em> who came from the South + to spend the summer months in traveling among them, were petty tyrants + at home. And those who had lived at the South, and came to reside at + the North, were too <em>ashamed of slavery</em> even to speak of + it; the language of their hearts was, "tell it <em>not</em> in + Gath, publish it <em>not</em> in the streets of Askelon;" they + saw no + + use in uncovering the loathsome body to popular sight, and in hopeless + despair, wept in secret places over the sins of oppression. To + such hidden mourners the formation of Anti-Slavery Societies was + as life from the dead, the first beams of hope which gleamed through + the dark clouds of despondency and grief. Prints were made use + of to effect the abolition of the Inquisition in Spain, and Clarkson + employed them when he was laboring to break up the Slave trade, + and English Abolitionists used them just as we are now doing. + They are powerful appeals and have invariably done the work they + were designed to do, and we cannot consent to abandon the use of + these until the <em>realities</em> no longer exist. + + </p> + <p> + With regard to those white men, who, it was said, did try to raise + an insurrection in Mississippi a year ago, and who were stated to be + Abolitionists, none of them were proved to be members of Anti-Slavery + Societies, and it must remain a matter of great doubt whether, + even they were guilty of the crimes alledged against them, because + when any community is thrown into such a panic as to inflict Lynch + law upon accused persons, they cannot be supposed to be capable of + judging with calmness and impartiality. <em>We know</em> that the + papers of which the Charleston mail was robbed, were <em>not</em> + insurrectionary, and that they were <em>not</em> sent to the + colored people as was reported. <em>We know</em> that Amos Dresser + was <em>no insurrectionist</em> though he was accused of being so, + and on this false accusation was publicly whipped in Nashville in the + midst of a crowd of infuriated <em>slaveholders</em>. Was + that young man disgraced by this infliction of corporal punishment? + No more than was the great apostle of the Gentile; who five times + received forty stripes, save one. Like him, he might have said, + "henceforth I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus," for + it was for the <em>truth's sake, he suffered</em>, as much as did + the Apostle Paul. Are Nelson, and Garrett, and Williams, and other + Abolitionists who have recently been banished from Missouri, + insurrectionists? <em>We know</em> they are <em>not</em>, + whatever slaveholders may choose to call them. The spirit which now + asperses the character of the Abolitionists, is the <em>very + same</em> which dressed up the Christians of Spain in the skins of + wild beasts and pictures of devils when they were led to execution as + heretics. Before we condemn individuals, it is necessary, even in a + wicked community, to accuse them of some crime; hence, when Jezebel + wished to compass the death of Naboth, men of Belial were suborned + to bear false witness against him, and so it was with Stephen, and so + it ever has been, and ever will be, as long as there is any virtue to + suffer on the rack, or the gallows. <em>False</em> witnesses must + appear against Abolitionists before they can be condemned. + + </p> + <p> + I will now say a few words on George Thompson's mission to this + country. This Philanthropist was accused of being a foreign emissary. + Were Lafayette, and Steuben, and De Kalb, and Pulawski, + foreign emissaries when they came over to America to fight against + the tories, who preferred submitting to what was termed, "the yoke + of servitude," rather than bursting the fetters which bound them to + the mother country? <em>They</em> came with <em>carnal + weapons</em> to engage in <em>bloody</em> + conflict against American citizens, and yet, where do their names + stand on the page of History. Among the honorable, or the base? + Thompson came here to war against the giant sin of slavery, + <em>not</em> with the sword and the pistol, but with the smooth + stones of oratory taken from the pure waters of the river of Truth. + His splendid talents and commanding eloquence rendered him a powerful + coadjutor in the Anti-Slavery cause, and in order to neutralize the + effects of these upon his auditors, and rob the poor slave of the + benefits of his labors, his character was defamed, his life was + sought, and he at last driven from our Republic, as a fugitive. But + was <em>Thompson</em> disgraced by all this mean and contemptible + and wicked chicanery and malice? No more than was Paul, when in + consequence of a vision he had seen at Treas, he went over the + Macedonia to help the Christians there, and was beaten and + imprisoned, because he cast out a spirit of divination + from a young damsel which had brought much gain to her masters. + Paul was as much a <em>foreign emissary</em> in the Roman colony + of Philippi, as George Thompson was in America, and it was because he + was a <em>Jew</em>, and taught customs it was not lawful for them + to receive or observe being Romans, that the Apostle was thus treated. + + </p> + <p> + It was said, Thompson was a felon, who had fled to this country to + escape transportation to New Holland. Look at him now pouring + the thundering strains of his eloquence, upon crowded audiences in + Great Britain, and see in this a triumphant vindication of his + character. And have the slaveholder, and his obsequious apologist, + gained anything by all their violence and falsehood? No! for the stone + which struck Goliath of Gath, had already been thrown from the + sling. The giant of slavery who had so proudly defied the armies + of the living God, had received his death-blow before he left our + shores. But what is George Thompson doing there? Is he not now + laboring there, as effectually to abolish American slavery as though + he trod our own soil, and lectured to New York or Boston assemblies? + What is he doing there, but constructing a stupendous dam, + which will turn the overwhelming tide of public opinion over the + wheels of that machinery which Abolitionists are working here. He + is now lecturing to <em>Britons</em> on + <em>American Slavery</em>, to the <em>subjects</em> of a + <em>King</em>, on the abject condition of the <em>slaves of + a Republic</em>. He is telling them of that mighty Confederacy of + petty tyrants which extends over thirteen States of our Union. He is + telling them of the munificent rewards offered by slaveholders, for + the heads of the most distinguished advocates for freedom in this + country. He is moving the British Churches to send out to the churches + of America the most solemn appeals, reproving, rebuking, and + exhorting, them with all + long suffering and patience to abandon the sin of slavery immediately. + Where then I ask, will the name of George Thompson stand on the + page of History? Among the honorable, or the base? + + </p> + <p> + What can I say more, my friends, to induce you to set your hands, + and heads, and hearts, to the great work of justice and mercy. Perhaps + you have feared the consequences of immediate emancipation, + and been frightened by all those dreadful prophecies of rebellion, + + bloodshed and murder, which have been uttered. "Let no man deceive + you;" they are the predictions of that same "lying spirit" which + spoke through the four hundred prophets of old, to Ahab king of + Israel, urging him on to destruction. <em>Slavery</em> may produce + these horrible scenes if it is continued five years longer, but + Emancipation <em>never will</em>. + + </p> + <p> + I can prove the <em>safety</em> of immediate Emancipation by + history. In St. Domingo in 1793 six hundred thousand slaves were set + free in a white population of forty-two thousand. That Island "marched + as by enchantment towards its ancient splendor", cultivation prospered, + every day produced perceptible proofs of its progress, and the + negroes all continued quietly to work on the different plantations, + until in 1802, France determined to reduce these liberated slaves + again to bondage. It was at <em>this time</em> that all those + dreadful scenes of cruelty occurred, which we so often + <em>unjustly</em> hear spoken of, as the effects of Abolition. + They were occasioned <em>not</em> by Emancipation, but by the + base attempt to fasten the chains of slavery on the limbs + of liberated slaves. + + </p> + <p> + In Guadaloupe eighty-five thousand slaves were freed in a white + population of thirteen thousand. The same prosperous effects followed + manumission here, that had attended it in Hayti, every thing + was quiet until Buonaparte sent out a fleet to reduce these negroes + again to slavery, and in 1802 this institution was re-established in + that Island. In 1834, when Great Britain determined to liberate the + slaves in her West India colonies, and proposed the apprenticeship + system; the planters of Bermuda and Antigua, after having joined + the other planters in their representations of the bloody consequences + of Emancipation, in order if possible to hold back the hand which + was offering the boon of freedom to the poor negro; as soon as they + found such falsehoods were utterly disregarded, and Abolition must + take place, came forward voluntarily, and asked for the compensation + which was due to them, saying, <em>they preferred immediate + emancipation</em>, and were not afraid of any insurrection. And + how is it with these islands now? They are decidedly more prosperous + than any of those on which the apprenticeship system was adopted, and + England is now trying to abolish that system, so fully convinced is + she that immediate Emancipation is the <em>safest</em> and the + best plan. + + </p> + <p> + And why not try it in the Southern States, if it <em>never</em> + has occasioned rebellion; if <em>not a drop of blood</em> has ever + been shed in consequence + of it, though it has been so often tried, why should we suppose it + would produce such disastrous consequences now? "Be not deceived + then, God is not mocked," by such false excuses for not doing + justly and loving mercy. There is nothing to fear from immediate + Emancipation, but <em>every thing</em> from the continuance of + slavery. + + </p> + <p> + Sisters in Christ, I have done. As a Southerner, I have felt it was + my duty to address you. I have endeavoured to set before you the + exceeding sinfulness of slavery, and to point you to the example of + those noble women who have been raised up in the church to effect + great revolutions, and to suffer for the truth's sake. I have appealed + + to your sympathies as women, to your sense of duty as + <em>Christian women</em>. I have attempted to vindicate the + Abolitionists, to prove the entire safety of immediate Emancipation, + and to plead the cause of the poor and oppressed. I have done—I have + sowed the seeds of truth, but I well know, that even if an Apollos + were to follow in my steps to water them, "<em>God only</em> can + give the increase." To Him then who is able to prosper the work of + his servant's hand, I commend this Appeal in fervent prayer, that as + he "hath <em>chosen the weak things of the world</em>, to + confound the things which are mighty," so He may guise His blessing, + to descend and carry conviction to the hearts of many Lydias through + these speaking pages. Farewell—Count me not your "enemy because I + have told you the truth," but believe me in unfeigned affection, + <br><br></p> + <p>Your sympathizing Friend,</p> + <p>ANGELINA E. GRIMKÉ.</p> + <p> + Shrewsbury, N.J., 1836. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h2><a name="E3"></a><br><br><br><br> + * * * * * + <br><br><br><br> + THIRD EDITION. + <br> + Price 6 1-4 cents single, 62 1-2 cents per dozen, $4 per hundred. + <br><br> + No. 3. + <br><br> + THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + <br><br> + * * * * * + <br><br> + LETTER OF GERRIT SMITH + <br> + TO + <br> + REV. JAMES SMYLIE, + <br> + OF THE + <br> + STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. + <br></h2> + <p> + 1837. + + </p> + <p> + LETTER, ETC. + + </p> + <p> + PETERBORO', October 28, 1836. + + </p> + <p> + Rev. JAMES SMYLIE, + + </p> + <p><em>Late Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Mississippi:</em></p> + <p> + SIR,—Accept my thanks for your politeness in sending me a copy + of your book on slavery. This book proves, that the often repeated + assertion, that the whole South is opposed to the discussion of the + question of slavery, is not true:—and so far, I rejoice in its + appearance. I presume—I know, indeed, that you are not the only man + in the South, who is in favor of this discussion. There are, + doubtless, many persons in the South, who believe, that all attempts + to suppress it, are vain, as well as wicked. Besides, you virtually + admit, that the South is compelled to discuss the question of + slavery; or, at least, to give her own views of it, in order to + prevent the conscience of Southern Christians—that conscience, + "which does make cowards of us all"—from turning traitor to the + cause of slavery. I rejoice, too, that you accompanied the copy sent + to me, with the request, that I should review it, and make "candid + remarks" upon it; and, that you have thus put it in my power to send + to the South some of my views on slavery, without laying myself open + to the charge of being discourteous and obtrusive. + + </p> + <p> + You undertake to show that slavery existed, and, with the Divine + approbation, amongst the Old Testament Jews; and that it also + existed, whilst our Saviour and his Apostles were on the earth, and + was approved by them. You thence argue, that it is not only an + innocent institution, but one which it is a religious duty to + maintain. + + </p> + <p> + I admit, for the sake of argument, that there was a servitude in the + patriarchal families which was approved by God. But what does this + avail in your defence of slavery, unless you show, that that servitude + and slavery are essentially alike? The literal terms of the relation + of master and servant, under that servitude, are not made known to + us; but we can, nevertheless, confidently infer their spirit from + facts, + + which illustrate their practical character; and, if this character be + found to be opposite to that of slavery, then it is manifest, that + what you say of patriarchal servitude is impertinent, and tends to + mislead, rather than enlighten your readers. To a few of these facts + and a few of the considerations arising from them, I now call your + attention. + + </p> + <p> + 1st. Read the first eight verses of the eighteenth chapter of Genesis, + and tell me, if you ever saw Gov. McDuffie or any other Southern + patriarch (for the governor desires to have all slaveholders looked + upon in the character of patriarchs) putting himself on a level with + his servants, and "working with his hands," after the manner of + Abraham and Sarah? + + </p> + <p> + 2d. There was such a community of interest—so much of mutual + confidence—between Abraham and his servants, that they fought his + battles. Indeed, the terms of this patriarchal servitude were such, + that in the event of the master's dying without issue, one of his + servants inherited his property (Gen. 15: 3). But, according to the + code of Southern slavery, the slave can no more own property, than + he can own himself. "All that a slave possesses belongs to his + master"—"Slaves are incapable of inheriting or transmitting + property." These, and many similar phrases, are found in that code. + Severe as was the system of Roman slavery, yet in this respect, it + was far milder than yours; for its subjects could acquire property + (their peculium); and frequently did they purchase their liberty with + it. So far from Southern slaves being, as Abraham's servants were, + a dependence in war, it is historically true, that they are accustomed + to improve this occasion to effect their escape, and strengthen the + hands of the enemy. As a further proof that Southern slavery begets + none of that confidence between master and slave, which characterized + the mutual intercourse of Abraham and his servants—the slave + is prohibited, under severe penalties, from having any weapons in his + possession, even in time of peace; and the nightly patrol, which the + terror-stricken whites of Southern towns keep up, in peace, as well as + in war, argues any thing, rather than the existence of such + confidence. "For keeping or carrying a gun, or powder or shot, or a + club, or other weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive, a slave + incurs, says Southern statute book, for each offence, thirty-nine + lashes." + + </p> + <p> + 3d. When I read your quotation from the twenty-fourth chapter of + Genesis, made for the purpose of showing that God allowed Abraham + to have slaves, I could not but wonder at your imprudence, in meddling + with this chapter, which is of itself, enough to convince any + unbiased mind, that Abraham's servants held a relation to their + + master and to society, totally different from that held by Southern + slaves. Have you ever known a great man in your state send his + slave into another to choose a wife for his son?—And if so, did the + lily white damsel he selected call the sable servant "my lord?"—And + did her family spare no pains to manifest respect for their + distinguished guest, and promote his comfort? But this chapter, which + you call to your aid, informs us, that Abraham's servant was honored + with such tokens of confidence and esteem. If a Southern slave shall + ever be employed in such a mission, he may count himself highly + favored, if he be not taken up by the way, imprisoned, and "sold for + his jail fees." + + </p> + <p> + 4th. Did you ever know Southern slaves contend for their rights + with their masters? When a Southern master reads the thirteenth + verse of the thirty-first chapter of Job, he must think that Job was + in the habit of letting down his dignity very low. + + </p> + <p> + 5th. Do Southern masters accord religious privileges and impart + religious instruction equally to their slaves and their children? Your + laws, which visit with stripes, imprisonment, and death, the attempt + to teach slaves to read the Bible, show but too certainly, that the + Southern master, who should undertake to place "his children and + his household" on the same level, in respect to their religious + advantages, as it is probable that Abraham did (Gen. 18:19), would + soon find himself in the midst of enemies, not to his reputation only, + but to his life also. + + </p> + <p> + And now, sir, admitting that the phrase, on which you lay so much + stress—"bought with his money"—was used in connexion with a + form of servitude which God approved—I put it to your candor, + whether this phrase should be allowed to weigh at all against the + facts I have adduced and the reasonings I have employed to show the + true nature of that servitude, and how totally unlike it is to + slavery? Are you not bound by the principles of sound reasoning, to + attach to it a meaning far short of what, I grant, is its natural + import in this age, and, especially, amongst a people who, like + ourselves, are accustomed to associate such an expression with + slavery? Can you deny, that you are bound to adopt such a meaning of + it, as shall harmonize with the facts, which illustrate the nature of + the servitude in question, and with the laws and character of Him, + whose sanction you claim for that servitude? An opposite course would + give a preference to words over things, which common sense could not + tolerate. Many instances might be cited to show the absurdity of the + assumption that whatever is spoken of in the Scriptures as being + "bought," is property. Boaz + + "purchased" his wife. Hosea "bought her (his wife) for fifteen + pieces of silver." Jacob, to use a common expression, "took his + wages" in wives. Joseph "bought" the Egyptians, after they had said + to him "buy us." But, so far from their having become the property + of Joseph or of his king, it was a part of the bargain, that they were + to have as much land as they wanted—seed to sow it—and four-fifths + of the crops. The possessors of such independence and such means + of wealth are not the property of their fellow-men. + + </p> + <p> + I need say no more, to prove that slavery is entirely unlike the + servitude in the patriarchal families. I pass on, now, to the period + between the promulgation of the Divine law by Moses, and the birth + of Christ. + + </p> + <p> + You argue from the fifth and sixth verses of the twenty-first chapter + of Exodus, that God authorized the enslavement of the Jews: + but, on the same page, on which you do so, you also show the contrary. + It may, nevertheless, be well for me to request you to read + and read again Leviticus 25:39-42, until your remaining doubts, + on this point, shall all be put to flight. I am free to admit the + probability, that under some of the forms of servitude, in which Jews + were held, the servant was subjected to a control so extensive as to + expose him to suffer great cruelties. These forms corresponded with + the spirit and usages of the age, in which they existed; entirely + unsuited, as they are, to a period and portion of the world, blessed + with the refining and softening influences of civilization and the + gospel. Numerous as were the statutory regulations for the treatment + of the servant, they could not preclude the large discretion of the + master. The apprentice, in our country, is subjected to an authority, + equaling a parent's authority, but not always tempered in its + exercise, with a parent's love. His condition is, therefore, not + unfrequently marked with severity and suffering. Now, imagine what + this condition would be, under the harsh features of a more barbarous + age, and you will have in it, as I conjecture, no distant resemblance + to that of some of the Jewish servants. But how different is this + condition from that of the slave! + + </p> + <p> + I am reminded in this connexion, of the polished, but pernicious, + article on slavery in a late number of the Biblical Repertory. In + that article Professor Hodge says, that the claim of the slaveholder + "is found to be nothing more than a transferable claim of service + either for life, or for a term of years." Will he allow me to ask him, + where he discovered that the pretensions of the slaveholder are all + resolvable into this modest claim? He certainly did not discover it + + in any slave code; nor in any practical slavery. Where then? No + where, but in that undisclosed system of servitude, which is the + creation of his own fancy. To this system I raise no objection + whatever. On the contrary, I am willing to admit its beauty and its + worthiness of the mint in which it was coined. But I protest against + his right to bestow upon it the name of another and totally different + thing. He must not call it slavery. + + </p> + <p> + Suppose a poor German to be so desirous of emigrating with his + family to America, as to agree to give his services for ten years, as + a compensation for the passage. Suppose further, that the services + are to be rendered to the captain of the ship in which they sail, or + to any other person, to whom he may assign his claim. Such a bargain + is not uncommon. Now, according to Professor Hodge, this German + may as rightly as any of your Southern servants, be called a slave. + He may as rightly be called <i>property</i>, as + they may be, who, in the language + of the South Carolina laws, "shall be deemed, held, taken, + reputed, and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal, in the hands + of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, + and assigns, <em>to all intents, constructions, and purposes + whatsoever</em>." + + </p> + <p> + We will glance at a few points of difference in their condition. + 1st. The German is capable of making a contract, and in the case + supposed, does make a contract; but your slave is incapable of making + any contract. 2d. The German receives wages; the price of + carrying himself and family being the stipulated price for his + services, during the ten years; but your slave receives no wages. + 3d. The German, like any other hireling, and, like any apprentice in + our country, is under the protection of law. But, there is no law to + shield the slave from wrongs. Being a mere chattel or thing, he has + no rights; and, therefore, he can have no wrongs to be redressed. + Does Professor Hodge say, that there are statutes limiting and + regulating the power of the slaveholder? I grant there are; though it + must be remembered, that there is one way of even murdering a slave, + which some of the slave States do not only not forbid, but impliedly + and practically admit<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE3_FN1"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE3_FN1"></a>. The Professor should know, however, that all + + these statutes are, practically, a mere nullity. Nevertheless, they + show the absoluteness of the power which they nominally qualify. + This absoluteness is as distinctly implied by them, as the like was by + the law of the Emperor Claudius, which imposed limitations upon the + "jus vitae et necis" (the right of life and death) which Roman slavery + put into the hand of the master. But if the Professor should be so + imprudent as to cite us to the slave code for evidence of its merciful + provisions, he will, in so doing, authorize us to cite him to that + code for evidence of the <em>nature</em> of slavery. This + authority, however, he would not like to give us; for he is unwilling + to have slavery judged of by its own code. He insists, that it shall + be judged of by that ideal system of slavery, which is lodged in his + own brain, and which he can bring forth by parcels, to suit present + occasions, as Mahomet produced the leaves of the Koran. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE3_FN1"></a><a href="#FootE3_FN1">A</a>: The licensed murder + referred to, is that where the slave dies under "moderate + correction." But is not the murder of a slave by a white man, + <em>in any way</em>, practically licensed in all the slave States? + Who ever heard of a white man's being put to death, under Southern + laws, for the murder of a slave? American slavery provides impunity + for the white murderer of the slave, by its allowing none but + whites—none but those who construct and uphold the system of + abominations—to testify against the murderer. But why particularize + causes of this impunity? The whole policy of the Southern slave + system goes to provide it. How unreasonable is it to suppose, that + they, who have conspired against a portion of their fellow-beings, and + mutually pledged themselves to treat them as <em>mere + things</em>—how unreasonable, I say, is it to suppose, that they + would consent to put a <em>man</em> to death, on account of + his treatment, in whatever way, of a <em>mere thing</em>? Not + long ago, I was informed by a highly respectable lawyer of the State + of Georgia, that he had known a number of attempts (attempts most + probably but in form and name) to effect the conviction of whites + for their undoubted murder of slaves. But in every instance, the + jurors perjured themselves, rather than consent that a + <em>man</em> should be put to death, + for the liberty he had taken in disposing of a <em>thing</em>. + They had rather perjure themselves, than by avenging the blood of a + <em>slave</em> with that of a <em>man</em>, make a breach + upon the policy of keeping the slave ignorant, that he has the + <em>nature</em>, and consequently the <em>rights</em>, of + a man. + </p> + <p> + Professor Hodge tells his readers, in substance, that the selling of + men, as they are sold under the system of slavery, is to be classed + with the cessions of territory, occasionally made by one sovereign to + another; and he would have the slave, who is sold from hand to + hand, and from State to State, at the expense to his bleeding heart, of + the disruption of its dearest ties, think his lot no harder than that of + the inhabitant of Louisiana, who was passed without his will, from + the jurisdiction of the French government to that of the United States. + + </p> + <p> + When a good man lends himself to the advocacy of slavery, he + must, at least for a time, feel himself to be anywhere but at home, + amongst his new thoughts, doctrines, and modes of reasoning. This + is very evident in the case before us—especially, when now and then, + old habits of thought and feeling break out, in spite of every effort to + repress them, and the Professor is himself again, and discourses as + manfully, as fearlessly, and as eloquently, as he ever had done before + + the slaveholders got their hands upon him. It is not a little amusing + to notice, that, although the burden of his article is to show that slavery + is one of God's institutions, (what an undertaking for a Professor of + Theology in the year 1836!) he so far forgets the interests of his + new friends and their expectations from him, as to admit on one page, + that "the general principles of the gospel have destroyed domestic + slavery throughout the greater part of Christendom;" and on another, + that "the South has to choose between emancipation, by the silent + and holy influence of the gospel, or to abide the issue of a long continued + conflict against the laws of God." Whoever heard, until + these strange times on which we have fallen, of any thing, which, to + use the Professor's language about slavery, "it is in vain, to contend + is sin, and yet profess reverence for the Scriptures," being at war + with and destroyed by the principles of the gospel. What sad confusion + of thought the pro-slavery influences, to which some great + divines have yielded, have wrought in them! + + </p> + <p> + I will proceed to argue, that the institution in the Southern States + called "slavery," is radically unlike any form of servitude under + which Jews were held, agreeably to the Divine will; and also radically + unlike any form of servitude approved of God in the patriarchal + families. + + </p> + <p> + 1st. God does not contradict Himself. He is "without variableness or shadow of turning." He loves his word and has "magnified + it above all his name." He + commands his rational creatures to "search the Scriptures." He cannot, + therefore, approve of a system which forbids the searching of them, and shuts + out their light from the soul; and which, by the confession of your own + selves, turns men in this gospel land into heathen. He has written his + commandment against adultery, and He cannot, therefore, approve of a system, + which induces this crime, by forbidding marriage. The following + extract from an opinion of the Attorney General of Maryland, shows + some of the consequences of this "forbidding to marry." "A slave + has never maintained an action against the violator of his bed. A + slave is not admonished for incontinence, or punished for fornication + or adultery; never prosecuted for bigamy." Again, God has written + his commandment, that children should honor their parents. How, + then, can He approve of a system, which pours contempt on the relation + of parent and child? Which subjects them to be forcibly separated from + each other, and that too, beyond the hope of reunion?—under which parents + are exposed and sold in the market-place along with horses and cattle?—under + which they are stripped and lashed, + + and made to suffer those innumerable, and some of them, nameless + indignities, that tend to generate in their children, who witness them, + any feelings, rather than those of respect and honor, for parents thus + degraded? Some of these nameless indignities are alluded to in a + letter written to me from a slave state, in March, 1833. "In this + place," says the writer, "I find a regular and a much frequented slave + market, where thousands are yearly sold like cattle to the highest + bidder. It is the opinion of gentlemen here, that not far from five + hundred thousand dollars are yearly paid in this place for negroes; + and at this moment, I can look from the window of my room and + count six droves of from twenty to forty each, sitting in the market + place for sale. This morning I witnessed the sale of twelve slaves, + and I could but shudder at the language used and the liberties taken + with the females!" + + </p> + <p> + 2d. As a proof, that in the kinds of servitude referred to, God did + not invest Abraham, or any other person with that absolute ownership + of his fellow-men, which is claimed by Southern slaveholders—I would + remark, that He has made man accountable to Himself; but slavery + makes him accountable to, and a mere appendage to his fellow-man. + Slavery substitutes the will of a fallible fellow-man for that infallible + rule of action—the will of God. The slave, instead of being allowed + to make it the great end of his existence to glorify God and enjoy + Him for ever, is degraded from his exalted nature, which borders upon + angelic dignity, to be, to do, and to suffer what a mere man bids him + be, do, and suffer. + + </p> + <p> + The Southern slave would obey God in respect to marriage, and also + to the reading and studying of His word. But this, as we have seen, + is forbidden him. He may not marry; nor may he read the Bible. + Again, he would obey God in the duties of secret and social prayer. + But he may not attend the prayer-meeting—certainly not that of his + choice; and instances are known, where the master has intruded + upon the slave's secret audience with heaven, to teach him by the + lash, or some other instrument of torture, that he would allow "no + other God before" himself. + + </p> + <p> + Said Joseph Mason, an intelligent colored man, who was born and + bred near Richmond, in Virginia, in reply to my question whether he + and his fellow-slaves cared about their souls—"We did not trouble + ourselves about our souls; we were our masters' property and not + our own; under their and not our own control; and we believed that + our masters were responsible for our souls." This unconcern for + their spiritual interests grew very naturally out of their relation to + + their masters; and were the relation ordained of God, the unconcern + would, surely, be both philosophical and sinless. + + </p> + <p> + God cannot approve of a system of servitude, in which the master + is guilty of assuming absolute power—of assuming God's place and + relation towards his fellow-men. Were the master, in every case, a + wise and good man—as wise and good as is consistent with this + wicked and heaven-daring assumption on his part—the condition of + the slave would it is true, be far more tolerable, than it now is. But + even then, we should protest as strongly as ever against slavery; for + it would still be guilty of its essential wickedness of robbing a man + of his right to himself, and of robbing God of His right to him, and + of putting these stolen rights into the hand of an erring mortal. Nay, + if angels were constituted slaveholders, our objection to the relation + would remain undiminished; since there would still be the same robbery + of which we now complain. + + </p> + <p> + But you will say, that I have overlooked the servitude in which the + Jews held strangers and foreigners; and that it is on this, more than + any other, that you rely for your justification of slavery. I will say + nothing now of this servitude; but before I close this communication, + I will give my reasons for believing, that whatever was its + nature, even if it were compulsory, it cannot be fairly pleaded in + justification of slavery. + + </p> + <p> + After you shall have allowed, as you will allow, that slavery, as it + exists, is at war with God, you will be likely to say, that the fault is + not in the theory of it; but in the practical departure from that theory; + that it is not the system, but the practice under it, which is at war + with God. Our concern, however, is with slavery as it is, and not + with any theory of it. But to indulge you, we will look at the system + of slavery, as it is presented to us, in the laws of the slave States; + and what do we find here? Why, that the system is as bad as the + practice under it. Here we find the most diabolical devices to keep + millions of human beings in a state of heathenism—in the deepest + ignorance and most loathsome pollution. But you will tell me, that + I do not look far enough to find the true theory of slavery; and that + the cruelties and abominations, which the laws of the slave States have + ingrafted on this theory, are not acknowledged by the good men in + those States to be a part of the theory. Well, you shall have the + benefit of this plea; and I admit, for the sake of argument, that this + theory of slavery, which lies far back, and out of sight of every thing + visible and known about slavery, is right. And what does this admission + avail you? It is slavery as it is—as it is seen and known, that + + the abolitionists are contending against. But, say you, to induce our + forbearance, "We good men at the South are restoring slavery, as + fast as we can, to what it should be; and we will soon make its erring + practice quadrate with its perfect and sinless theory." Success + to your endeavors! But let me ask these good men, whether similar + representations would avail to make them forbearing towards any + other class of offenders; and whether they would allow these offenders + to justify the wickedness of their hands, by pleading the purity of + their hearts. Suppose that I stand in court confessedly guilty of the + crime of passing counterfeit money; and that I ask for my acquittal + on the ground, that, notwithstanding I am practically wrong, I am, + nevertheless, theoretically right. "Believe me," I say, in tones of + deep and unfeigned pathos, and with a corresponding pressure of my + hand upon my heart, "that the principles within are those of the purest + morality; and that it is my faithful endeavor to bring my deportment, + which, as you this day witness, is occasionally devious, into perfect + conformity with my inward rectitude. My theory of honest and holy + living is all that you could wish it to be. Be but patient, and you + shall witness its beautiful exhibitions in my whole conduct." Now, + you certainly would not have this plea turn to my advantage;—why + then expect that your similar plea should be allowed? + + </p> + <p> + We must continue to judge of slavery by what it is, and not by + what you tell us it will, or may be. Until its character be righteous, + we shall continue to condemn it; but when you shall have brought it + back to your sinless and beautiful theory of it, it will have nothing to + fear from the abolitionists. There are two prominent reasons, however, + for believing that you will never present Southern slavery to us + in this lovely character, the mere imagination of which is so dear to + you. The first is, that you are doing nothing to this end. It is an + indisputable fact that Southern slavery is continually getting wider and + wider from God, and from an innocent theory of servitude; and the + "good men at the South," of whom we have spoken, are not only + doing nothing to arrest this increasing divergency, but they are actually + favoring it. The writings of your Dews, and Baxters, and + Plummers, and Postells, and Andersons, and the proceedings of your + ecclesiastical bodies, abundantly show this. Never, and the assertion + is borne out by your statute books, as well as other evidences, has + Southern slavery multiplied its abominations so rapidly, as within the + last ten years; and never before had the Southern Church been so + much engaged to defend and perpetuate these abominations. The + other of these reasons for believing that Southern slavery will never + + be conformed to your <i>beau ideal</i> + of slavery, in which it is presupposed + there are none but principles of righteousness, is, that on its first contact + with these principles, it would "vanish into thin air," leaving + "not a wreck behind." In proof of this, and I need not cite any other + case, it would be immediate death to Southern slavery to concede to + its subjects, God's institution of marriage; and hence it is, that its + code forbids marriage. The rights of the husband in the wife, and + of the wife in the husband, and of parents in their children, would + stand directly in the way of that traffic in human flesh, which is the + very life-blood of slavery; and the assumptions of the master would, + at every turn and corner, be met and nullified by these rights; since + all his commands to the children of those servants (for now they + should no longer be called slaves) would be in submission to the + paramount authority of the parents<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE3_FN2"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE3_FN2"></a>. And here, sir, you and I might + bring our discussion to a close, by my putting the following questions + to you, both of which your conscience would compel you to answer + in the affirmative. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE3_FN2"></a><a href="#FootE3_FN2">A</a>: + I am aware that Professor Hodge asserts, that "slavery may exist without + those laws which interfere with their (the slaves) marital or parental + right" Now, this is a point of immense importance in the discussion of the + question, whether slavery is sinful; and I, therefore, respectfully ask him + either to retract the assertion, or to prove its correctness. Ten thousands + of his fellow-citizens, to whom the assertion is utterly incredible, unite + with me in this request. If he can show, that slavery does not "interfere + with marital or parental rights," they will cease to oppose it. Their + confident belief is, that slavery and marriage, whether considered in the + light of a civil contract, or a scriptural institution, are entirely + incompatible with each other. + </p> + <p> + 1st. Is not Southern slavery guilty of a most heaven-daring crime, + in substituting concubinage for God's institution of marriage? + + </p> + <p> + 2d. Would not that slavery, and also every theory and modification + of slavery, for which you may contend, come speedily to nought, + if their subjects were allowed to marry? Slavery, being an abuse, is + incapable of reformation. It dies, not only when you aim a fatal blow + at its life principle—its foundation doctrine of man's right to property + in man<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE3_FN3"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE3_FN3"></a>—but it dies as surely, when you prune it of its manifold + incidents of pollution and irreligion. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE3_FN3"></a><a href="#FootE3_FN3">B</a>: I mean by this phrase, "right to property in + man," a right to hold man as property; and I do not see with what propriety + certain writers construe it to mean, a property in the mere services of a + man. + </p> + <p> + But it would be treating you indecorously to stop you at this stage + of the discussion, before we are a third of the way through your book, + and thus deny a hearing to the remainder of it. We will proceed to + + what you say of the slavery which existed in the time of the New + Testament writers. Before we do so, however, let me call your attention to a + few of the specimens of very careless reasoning in that + part of your book, which we have now gone over. They may serve + to inspire you with a modest distrust of the soundness of other parts + of your argument. + + </p> + <p> + After concluding that Abraham was a slaveholder, you quote the + following language from the Bible; "Abraham obeyed my voice and + kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." + You then inquire, "How could this be true of Abraham, holding as + he did, until he was an old man, more slaves than any man in Mississippi or + Louisiana?" To be consistent with your design in quoting this passage, you + must argue from it, that Abraham was perfect. But this he was not; and, + therefore, your quotation is vain. Again, + if the slaveholder would quiet his conscience with the supposition, + that "Abraham held more slaves than any man in Mississippi or + Louisiana," let him remember, that he had also more concubines + (Gen. 25: 6), "than any man in Mississippi or Louisiana;" and, if + Abraham's authority be in the one case conclusive for slaveholding, + equally so must it be in the other, for concubinage. + + </p> + <p> + Perhaps, in saying that "Abraham had more concubines than any + man in Mississippi or Louisiana," I have done injustice to the spirit + of propagation prevailing amongst the gentlemen of those States. It + may be, that some of your planters quite distance the old patriarch in + obedience to the command to "multiply and replenish the earth." I + am correctly informed, that a planter in Virginia, who counted, I + know not how many slaves upon his plantation, confessed on his + death-bed, that his licentiousness had extended to every adult female + amongst them. This planter was a near relative of the celebrated + Patrick Henry. It may be, that you have planters in Mississippi and + Louisiana, who avail themselves to the extent that he did, of the + power which slaveholding gives to pollute and destroy. The hundreds + of thousands of mulattoes, who constitute the Southern commentary + on the charge, that the abolitionists design amalgamation, + bear witness that this planter was not singular in his propensities. I + do not know what you can do with this species of your population. + Besides, that it is a standing and deep reproach on Southern chastity, + it is not a little embarrassing and puzzling to those who have received + the doctrine, that the descendants of Africa amongst us must be returned to + the land of their ancestors. How the poor mulatto shall + be disposed of, under this doctrine, between the call which Africa + + makes for him, on the one hand, and that which some state of Europe + sends out for him on the other, is a problem more difficult of solution + than that which the contending mothers brought before the matchless + wisdom of Solomon. + + </p> + <p> + In the paragraph, which relates to the fourth and tenth commandments, there is + another specimen of your loose reasoning. You say, + that the language, "In it (the Sabbath) thou shalt do no work, thou, nor + thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man servant, nor thy maid servant," + "recognises the authority of the master over the servant." I grant, + that it does: but does it at all show, that these servants were slaves? + Does it recognise any more authority than the master should exercise + over his voluntary servants? Should not the head of a family + restrain all his servants, as well the voluntary as the involuntary, + from unnecessary labor on the Sabbath? You also say, that the tenth + commandment "recognizes servants as the <i>property</i> of + their masters." But how does it appear from the language of this commandment, + that the man servant and maid servant are property any more than the + wife is? We will proceed, however, to the third section of your + book. + + </p> + <p> + Your acquaintance with history has enabled you to show some of + the characteristics and fruits of Greek and Roman slavery. You + state the facts, that the subjects of this slavery were "absolutely the + property of their masters"—that they "were used like dogs"—that + "they were forbidden to learn any liberal art or perform any act worthy + of their masters"—that "once a day they received a certain number of + stripes for fear they should forget they were slaves"—that, at one time, + "sixty thousand of them in Sicily and Italy were chained and confined + to work in dungeons"—that "in Rome there was a continual market + for slaves," and that "the slaves were commonly exposed for sale + naked"—that, when old, they were turned away," and that too by a + master, highly esteemed for his superior virtues, to starve to + death"—that they were thrown into ponds to be food for fish—that + they were in the city of Athens near twenty times as numerous as free + persons—that there were in the Roman Empire sixty millions of + slaves to twenty millions of freemen mind that many of the Romans + had five thousand, some ten thousand, and others twenty thousand. + + </p> + <p> + And now, for what purpose is your recital of these facts?—not, + for its natural effect of awakening, in your readers, the utmost abhorrence + of slavery:—no—but for the strange purpose (the more strange + for being in the breast of a minister of the gospel) of showing your + readers, that even Greek and Roman slavery was innocent, and + + agreeable to God's will; and that, horrid as are the fruits you describe, + the tree, which bore them, needed but to be dug about and pruned—not + to be cut down. This slavery is innocent, you insist, because + the New Testament does not show, that it was specifically condemned + by the Apostles. By the same logic, the races, the games, + the dramatic entertainments, and the shows of gladiators, which + abounded in Greece and Rome, were, likewise, innocent, because the + New Testament does not show a specific condemnation of them by + the apostles<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE3_FN4"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE3_FN4"></a>. But, + although the New Testament does not show + such condemnation, does it necessarily follow, that they were silent, + in relation to these sins? Or, because the New Testament does not + specifically condemn Greek and Roman slavery, may we, therefore, + infer, that the Apostles did not specifically condemn it? Look + through the published writings of many of the eminent divines, who + have lived in modern times, and have written and published much + for the instruction of the churches, and you will not find a line in + them against gambling or theatres or the slave-trade;—in some of + them, not a line against the very common sin of drunkenness. Think + you, therefore, that they never spoke or wrote against these things? + It would be unreasonable to expect to find, in print, their sentiments + against all, even of the crying sins of their times. But how much + more unreasonable is it to expect to find in the few pages of the + Apostles' published letters, the whole of which can be read in a few + hours, their sentiments in relation to all the prominent sins of the age + in which they lived! And far greater still is the unreasonableness of + setting them down, as favorable to all practices which these letters do + not specifically condemn. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE3_FN4"></a><a href="#FootE3_FN4">A</a>: Prof. Hodge says, if the apostles did + abstain from declaring slavery to be sinful, + "it must have been, because they did not consider it as, in itself, a crime. + No other solution of their conduct is consistent with their truth or + fidelity." But he believes that they did abstain from so doing; and he + believes this, on the same evidence, on which he believes, that they + abstained from declaring the races, games, &c., above enumerated, to + be sinful. His own mode of reasoning, therefore, brings him unavoidably to the + conclusion, that these races, games, &c., were not sinful. + </p> + <p> + It may be, that the Saviour and the Apostles, in the course of their + teachings, both oral and written, did specify sins to a far greater + extent, than they are supposed to have done. It may be, that their + followers had much instruction, in respect to the great sin of slavery. + We must bear in mind, that but a very small part of that Divine + instruction, which, on the testimony of an Apostle, "the world itself + could not contain if written," has come down to us. Of the writings + + of our Saviour we have nothing. Of those of his Apostles a very + small part. It is probable, that, during his protracted ministry, the + learned apostle to the Gentiles wrote many letters on religious subjects + to individuals and to churches. So also of the immense amount + of instruction, which fell from the lips of the Apostles, but very little + is preserved. It was Infinite Wisdom, however, which determined + the size of the New, as well as of the Old Testament, and of what + kinds and portions of the Saviour's and the Apostles' instructions it + should consist. For obvious considerations, it is made up, in a great + measure, of general truths and propositions. Its limited size, if no + other reason, accounts for this. But, these general truths and + propositions are as comprehensive as the necessity of the case requires; + and, carried out into all their suitable applications they leave no sin + unforbidden. Small as is the New Testament, it is as large as we + need. It instructs us in relation to all our duties. It is as full on + the subject of slavery, as is necessary; and, if we will but obey its + directions, that bear on this subject, and "love one another," and + love our neighbors as ourselves, and, as we would that men should + do to us, do "also to them likewise," and "remember them, that are + in bonds as bound with them," and "give unto servants, that which + is just and equal"—not a vestige of this abomination will remain. + + </p> + <p> + For the sake of the argument, I will admit, that the Apostles made + no specific attack on slavery<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE3_FN5"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE3_FN5"></a>; and that they left it to be reached and + + overthrown, provided it be sinful, by the general principles and + instructions which they had inculcated. But you will say, that it was + their practice, in addition to inculcating such principles and instructions, + to point out sins and reprove them:—and you will ask, with + great pertinence and force, why they did not also point out and + reprove slavery, which, in the judgment of abolitionists, is to be classed + with the most heinous sins. I admit, that there is no question + addressed to abolitionists, which, after the admission I have made for + them, it is less easy to answer; and I admit further, that they are + bound to answer it. I will proceed to assign what to me appear to + be some of the probable reasons, why the Apostles specified the sins + of lying, covetousness, stealing, &c., and, agreeably to the admission, + which lays me under great disadvantage, did not specify slavery. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE3_FN5"></a><a href="#FootE3_FN5">A</a>: This is no small + admission in the face of the passage, in the first chapter of + Timothy, which particularizes manstealing, as a violation of the law of + God. I believe all scholars will admit, that one of the crimes referred to + by the Apostle, is kidnapping. But is not kidnapping an integral and most + vital part of the system of slavery? And is not the slaveholder guilty of + this crime? Does he not, indeed, belong to a class of kidnappers stamped + with peculiar meanness? The pirate, on the coast of Africa, has to cope + with the strength and adroitness of mature years. To get his victim into + his clutches is a deed of daring and of peril demanding no + little praise, upon the principles of the world's "code of honor." + But the proud chivalry of the South is securely employed in kidnapping + newborn infants. The pirate, in the one case, soothes his conscience + with the thought, that the bloody savages merit no better treatment, + than they are receiving at his hands:—but the pirate, in the other, can + have no such plea—for they, whom he kidnaps, are + untainted with crime. + + + </p> + <p> + And what better does it make the case for you, if we adopt the translation of + "men stealers?" Far better, you will say, for, on the authority of Othello + himself, + + </p> + <div class="lg">"He that is robb'd———<br>Let him not know it, and he's not robbed at all."<br><br></div> + <p> + But, your authority is not conclusive. The crime of the depredation is none + the less, because the subject is ignorant or unconscious of it. It is true, + the slave, who never possessed liberty—who was kidnapped at his birth—may + not grieve, under the absence of it, as he does, from whose actual and + conscious possession it had been violently taken: but the robbery is alike + plain, and is coupled with a meanness, in the one case, which does not + disgrace it in the other. + </p> + <p> + 1st. The book of Acts sets forth the fundamental doctrines and + requirements of Christianity. It is to the letters of the Apostles we + are to look for extended specifications of right and wrong affections, + and right and wrong practices. Why do these letters omit to specify + the sin of slaveholding? Because they were addressed to professing + Christians exclusively; who, far more emphatically then than now, + were "the base things of the world," and were in circumstances to be + slaves, rather than slaveholders. Doubtless, there were many slaves + amongst them—but I cannot admit, that there were slaveholders. + There is not the least probability, that slaveholding was a prevalent + sin amongst primitive Christians<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE3_FN6"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE3_FN6"></a>. Instructions to them on that sin + might have been almost as superfluous, as would be lectures on the + sin of luxury, addressed to the poor Greenland disciples, whose + poverty compels them to subsist on filthy oil. No one, acquainted + with the history of their lives, believes that the Apostles were + slave-holders. They labored, "working with (their) own hands." The + + supposition, that they were slaveholders, is inconsistent with their + practice, and with the tenor of their instructions to others on the duty + of manual labor. But if the Apostles were not slaveholders, why + may we suppose, that their disciples were? At the South, it is, "like + people, like priest," in this matter. There, the minister of the gospel + thinks, that he has as good right to hold slaves, as has his parishioner: + and your Methodists go so far, as to say, that even a bishop has as + good right, as any other person, to have slaves + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE3_FN6"></a><a href="#FootE3_FN6">B</a>: How strongly does + the following extract from the writings of the great and + good Augustine, who lived in the fourth century, argue, that slaveholding + was not a prevalent sin amongst primitive Christians! + "Non opurtet Christianum possidere servum quomodo equum aut argentum. + Quis dicere audeat ut vestimentum cum debere contemni? Hominem namque + homo tamquam seipsum diligere debet cui ab omnium Domino, ut inimicos + diligat, imperatur." <em>A Christian ought not to hold his + servant as he does his horse or his money. Who dares say that he should + be thought as lightly of as a garment? For man, whom the Lord of all has + commanded to love his enemies, should love his fellow-man as + himself.</em></p> + <div class="lg">"———to fan him while he sleeps,<br>And tremble when he wakes."<br><br></div> + <p> + Indeed, they already threaten to separate from their Northern brethren, + unless this right be conceded. But have we not other and conclusive + evidence, that primitive Christians were not slaveholders? We + will cite a few passages from the Bible to show, that it was not the + will of the Apostles to have their disciples hold manual labor in + disrepute, as it is held, in all slaveholding communities. "Do your + own business, and work with your own hands, as we commanded + you." "For this we commanded you, that, if any would not work, + neither should he eat." "Let him that stole, steal no more; but + rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, + that he may have to give to him that needeth." In bringing the + whole verse into this last quotation, I may have displeased you. I + am aware, that you slaveholders proudly and indignantly reject the + applicableness to yourselves of the first phrase in this verse, and + also of the maxim, that "the partaker of stolen goods is as bad as + the thief." I am aware, that you insist, that the kidnapping of a man, + or getting possession of him, after he has been kidnapped, is not to be + compared, if indeed it can be properly called theft at all, with the crime + of stealing a <i>thing</i>. It occurs to me, that if + a shrewd lawyer had you on trial for theft, he would say, that you + were <i>estopped</i> from going into this distinction + between a <i>man</i> and a + <i>thing</i>, inasmuch as, by your own + laws, the slave is expressly declared to be a + <i>chattel</i>—is expressly <em>elevated</em> into + a <i>thing</i>. He would say, however competent it may + be for others to justify themselves on the ground, that it was but a + <i>man</i>, and not a <i>thing</i>, + they had stolen; your own statutes, which, with + magic celerity, convert stolen men into things, make such a plea, on + your part, utterly inadmissible. He would have you as fast, as though + the stolen goods, in your hands, were a bushel of wheat, or some + other important <i>thing</i>, instead of + <i>a mere man</i>. + + </p> + <p> + But, if you are not yet convinced that primitive Christians were not + + slaveholders, let me cite another passage to show you, how very + improbable it is, that they stood in this capacity:—"all, that believed, + had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods, and + parted them to all men, as every man had need." Now I do not say, + that all the primitive believers did so. But if a portion of them did, + and met with the Apostles' approbation in it, is it at all probable, that + a course, so diverse from it, as that of slaveholding in the Church, met + likewise with their approbation? + + </p> + <p> + 2d. I go on to account for the Apostles' omission to specify + slavery. + + </p> + <p> + Criminality is not always obvious, in proportion to its extent. The + sin of the traffic in intoxicating liquors, was, until the last few years, + almost universally unfelt and unperceived. But now, we meet with + men, who, though it was "in all good conscience," that they were + once engaged in it, would not resume it for worlds; and who see + more criminality, in taking money from a fellow man, in exchange for + the liquor which intoxicates him, than in simple theft. However it + may be with others, in this employment, they now see, that, for them + to traffic in intoxicating liquors, would be to stain themselves with the + twofold crime of robbery and murder. How is it, that good men + ever get into this employment?—and, under what influences and by + what process of thought, do they come to the determination to abandon + it? The former is accounted for, by the fact, that they grow up—have + their education—their moral and intellectual training—in the + midst of a public opinion, and even of laws also, which favor and sanction + the employment. The latter is accounted for, by the fact, that + they are brought, in the merciful providence of God, to observe and + study and understand the consequences of their employment—especially + on those who drink their liquor—the liquor which they sell + or make, or, with no less criminality, furnish the materials for making. + These consequences they find to be "evil, only evil, and that continually." + They find, that this liquor imparts no benefit to them who + drink it, but tends to destroy, and, oftentimes, does destroy, their + healths and lives. To continue, therefore, in an employment in + which they receive their neighbor's money, without returning him an + equivalent, or any portion of an equivalent, and, in which they expose + both his body and soul to destruction, is to make themselves, in their + own judgments, virtually guilty of theft and murder. + + </p> + <p> + Thus it is in the case of a national war, waged for conquest. + Christians have taken part in it; and, because they were blinded by + a wrong education, and were acting in the name of their country and + + under the impulses of patriotism, they never suspected that they were + doing the devil, instead of "God, service." But when, in the kind + providence of God, one of these butchers of their fellow beings is + brought to pause and consider his ways, and to resolve his enormous + and compound sin into its elements of wickedness,—into the lies, + theft, covetousness, adultery, murder, and what not of crime, which + enter into it,—he is amazed that he has been so "slow of heart to + believe," and abandon the iniquity of his deeds. + + </p> + <p> + What I have said to show that Christians, even in enlightened and + gospelized lands, may be blind to the great wickedness of certain + customs and institutions, serves to introduce the remark; that there + were probably some customs and institutions, in the time of the + Apostles, on which it would have been even worse than lost labor for + them to make direct attacks. Take, for example, the kind of war + of which we have been speaking. If there are reasons why the + modern Christian can be insensible to the sin of it, there are far + stronger reasons why the primitive Christian could be. If the light + and instruction which have been accumulating for eighteen centuries, + are scarcely sufficient to convince Christians of its wickedness, is it + reasonable to suppose that, at the commencement of this long period, + they could have been successfully taught it? Consider, that at that + time the literature and sentiment of the world were wholly on the side + of war; and especially, consider how emphatically the authority of + civil government and of human law was in favor of its rightfulness. + Now, to how great an extent such authority covers over and sanctifies + sin, may be inferred from the fact, that there are many, who, + notwithstanding they believe slavery to be a most Heaven-daring sin, yet, + because it is legalized and under the wing of civil government, would + not have it spoken against. Even Rev. Dr. Miller, in certain resolutions + which he submitted to the last General Assembly, indicated + his similar reverence for human laws; and the lamented Dr. Rice + distinctly recognises, in his letter to Mr. Maxwell, the doctrine that + the Church is bound to be quiet about every sin which the civil government + adopts and whitewashes. That the Christian Spectator should + indorse the Doctor's sentiments on this point is still more worthy of + remark than that he should utter them. Indeed, I judge from what + you say on the 68th and 69th pages of your book, that you are yourself + opposed to calling in question the morality of that which civil + government approves. But, to doubt the infallibility of civil government,—to + speak against Caesar,—was manifestly held to be quite as + presumptuous in the time of the Apostles as it is now. + + </p> + <p> + Another reason why an Apostle would probably have deemed it + hopeless to attempt to persuade his disciples, immediately and directly, + of the sin of war, is to be found in the fact of their feeble and distorted + perception of truth and duty. We, whose advantage it is to + have lived all our days in the light of the gospel, and whose ancestors, + from time immemorial, had the like precious advantage, can hardly + conceive how very feeble and distorted was that perception. But, + consider for a moment who those disciples were. They had, most + of them, but just been taken out of the gross darkness and filth of + heathenism. In reading accounts which missionaries give of converted + heathen—of such, even, as have for ten, fifteen, or twenty + years, been reputed to be pious—you are, doubtless, often surprised + to find how grossly erroneous are their moral perceptions. Their + false education still cleaves to them. They are yet, to a great extent, + in the mould of a corrupted public opinion; and, as far from having + a clear discernment of moral truth, as were the partially unsealed + eyes which saw "men, as trees, walking." The first letter to the + Church at Corinth, proves that the new principles implanted in its + members had not yet purged out the leaven of their old wickedness; + and that their conceptions of Christian purity and conduct were sadly + defective. As it was with the Corinthian Christians, so was it to a + great extent with the other Christians of that age. Now, if the + Apostles did not directly teach the primitive believers that wars, and + theatres, and games, and slavery, are sinful, it is because they thought + it more fit to exercise their ignorant pupils chiefly in the mere alphabet + and syllables of Christianity. (Acts xv, 28, 29.) The construction + of words and sentences would naturally follow. The rudiments + of the gospel, if once possessed by them, would be apt to lead them + on to greater attainments. Indeed, the love, peace, truth, and other + elements of holy living inculcated by the Apostles, would, if turned + to all proper account, be fatal to every, even the most gigantic, system + of wickedness. Having these elements in their minds and + hearts, they would not fail of condemning the great and compound + sin of war whenever they should be led to take it up, examine it, + resolve it into its constituent parts, and lay these parts for comparison, + by the side of those elements. But, such an advance was hardly to + be expected from many of these heathen converts during the brief + period in which they enjoyed Apostolic instruction; and it is but too + probable, that most of them died in great ignorance of the sin of + national wars. Converts from the heathen, in the present age, when + + conviction of the sinfulness of war is spreading in different parts of Christendom, would be more likely to imbibe correct + views of it. + + </p> + <p> + The Apostles "fed with milk" before they fed with meat, as did + our Saviour, who declared, "I have yet many things to say unto you, + but ye cannot bear them now." In every community, the foundation + principles of righteousness must be laid, before there can be fulcrums + for the levers to be employed in overthrowing the sins which prevail in it. + You will doubtless, then, agree with me, that it is not probable that + the Apostles taught their heathen converts, directly and specifically, + the sinfulness of war. But slaves, in that age, with the exception of the + comparative few who were reduced to slavery on account of the + crimes of which they had been judicially convicted, were the spoils + of war. How often in that age, as was most awfully the fact, on + the final destruction of Jerusalem, were the slave-markets of the + world glutted by the captives of war! Until, therefore, they should + be brought to see the sinfulness of war, how could they see the sinfulness + of so direct and legitimate a fruit of it as slavery?—and, if + the Apostles thought their heathen converts too weak to be instructed + in the sinfulness of war, how much more would they abstain from + instructing them, directly and specifically, in the sin of slavery! + + </p> + <p> + 3d. In proceeding with my reasons why the Apostles did not + extend their specification of sins to slavery, I remark, that it is apparent + from the views we have taken, and from others which might have + been taken, that nothing would have been gained by their making + direct and specific attacks on the institutions of the civil governments + under which they lived. Indeed, much might have been lost by their doing so. + Weak converts, with still many remains of heathenism about them, might in + this wise have been incurably prejudiced against truths, which, by other + modes of teaching,—by general and indirect instructions,—would probably + have been lodged in their minds. And there is another point of view in which + vastly more, even their lives, might have been lost, by the Apostles making + the direct and specific attacks referred to. I know that you ridicule the + idea of their consulting their personal safety. But what right have you to + do so? They did, on many occasions, consult the security of their lives. + They never perilled them needlessly, and through a presumptuous reliance on + God. It is the devil, who, in a garbled quotation from the Scriptures, + lays down, in unlimited terms, the proposition, that God will keep his + children. But, God promises them protection only when they are in their + own proper ways. The Saviour himself consulted the safety of his life, + until his "time" had "full come;" and + + his command to his Apostles was, "when they persecute you in this + city, flee ye into another." If you suppose me to admit for a moment, + that regard for the safety of their lives ever kept them from + the way of their duty, you are entirely mistaken; and, if you continue + to assert, in the face of my reasoning to the contrary, that on + the supposition of the sinfulness of slavery, their omission to make + direct and specific attacks on it would have been a failure of their + duty, then I can only regret that this reasoning has had no more + influence upon you. + + </p> + <p> + I observe that Professor Hodge agrees with you, that if slavery is + sin, it would have been specifically attacked by the Apostles at any + hazard to their lives. This is his conclusion, because they did not + hesitate to specify and rebuke idolatry. Here is another of the Professor's + sophisms. The fact, that the Apostles preached against + idolatry, is no reason at all why, if slavery is sin, they would have + preached against that also. On the one hand, it is not conceivable + that the gospel can be preached where there is idolatry, without + attacking it: for, in setting forth the true God to idolaters, the + preacher must denounce their false gods. On the other hand, gospel + sermons can be preached without number, and the true God presented, + not only in a nation of idolaters, but elsewhere, without one + allusion being made to such crying sins as slavery, lewdness, and + intemperance. + + </p> + <p> + In the same connexion, Professor Hodge makes the remark + "We do not expect them (our missionaries) to refrain from denouncing + the institutions of the heathen as sinful, because they are + popular, or intimately interwoven with society." If he means by + this language, that it is the duty of missionaries on going into a + heathen nation, to array themselves against the civil government, and + to make direct and specific attacks on its wicked nature and wicked + administration, then is he at issue, on this point, with the whole + Christian public; and, if he does not mean this, or what amounts to + this, I do not see how his remark will avail any thing, in his attempt + to show that the Apostles made such attacks on whatever sinful + institutions came under their observation. + + </p> + <p> + What I have said on a former page shows sufficiently how fit it is + for missionaries to the heathen, more especially in the first years of + their efforts among them, to labor to instruct their ignorant pupils in + the elementary principles of Christianity, rather than to call their + attention to the institutions of civil government, the sinfulness of + which they would not be able to perceive until they had been grounded + + in those elementary principles; and the sinfulness of which, more + than of any thing else, their prejudices would forbid them to suspect. + Another reason why the missionary to the heathen should not directly, + and certainly not immediately, assail their civil governments, is that + he would thereby arouse their jealousies to a pitch fatal to his + influence, his usefulness, and most probably his life; and another + reason is, that this imprudence would effectually close the door, for + a long time, against all efforts, even the most judicious, to spread the + gospel amongst a people so needlessly and greatly prejudiced against + it by an unwise and abrupt application of its principles. For instance, + what folly and madness it would be for our missionaries to Burmah, + to make a direct assault on the political institutions of that country! + How fatal would it be to their lives, and how incalculably injurious + to the cause entrusted to their hands! And, if this can be said of + them, after they have spent ten, fifteen, and twenty years, in efforts + to bring that portion of the heathen world to a knowledge and love + of the truth, how much more emphatically could it be said if they + had been in the field of their labors but three or four years! And + yet, even this short space of time exceeds the average period of the + Apostles' labor among those different portions of the heathen world + which they visited;—labor, too, it must be remembered, not of the + whole, nor even of half of "the twelve." + + </p> + <p> + That the Apostles could not have made direct attacks on the institutions + of the Roman government, but at the expense of their lives, + is not to be doubted. Our Saviour well knew how fatal was the + jealousy of that government to the man who was so unhappy as to + have excited it; and he accordingly avoided the excitement of it, as + far as practicable and consistent. His ingenious and beautiful disposition + of the question, "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or + not," is among the instances, in which He studied to shun the displeasure + of the civil government. Pilate gave striking evidence of + his unwillingness to excite the jealousy of his government, when, + every other expedient to induce him to consent to the Saviour's death + having failed, the bare charge, utterly unproven and groundless, that, + the Divine prisoner had put forth pretensions, interfering with Caesar's + rights, availed to procure His death-warrant from the hands of that + truth-convicted, but man-fearing governor. Had it not availed, Pilate + would have been exposed to the suspicion of disloyalty to his government; + and so perilous was this suspicion, that he was ready, at any + expense to his conscience and sense of justice, to avoid incurring it. + + </p> + <p> + A direct attack on Roman slavery, as it would have called in + + question the rightfulness of war—the leading policy of the Roman + government—would, of course, have been peculiarly perilous to its + presumptuous author. No person could have made this attack, and + lived; or, if possibly he might have escaped the vengeance of the + government, do we not know too much of the deadly wrath of + slaveholders, to believe that he could have also escaped the summary + process of Lynch law? If it be at the peril of his life that a Northern + man travels in the Southern States,—and that, too, whether he do or + do not say a word about slavery, or even whether he be or be not an + abolitionist;—if your leading men publicly declare, that it is your + religious duty to put to an immediate death, whenever they come + within your power, those who presume to say that slavery is sin (and + such a declaration did a South Carolina gentleman make on the floor + of congress, respecting the inconsiderable person who is addressing + you);—and, if your professing Christians, not excepting ministers + of the gospel, thirst for the blood of abolitionists<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE3_FN7"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE3_FN7"></a>, as I will abundantly + + show, if you require proof;—if, in a gospel land, all this be + so, then I put it to your candor, whether it can reasonably be supposed + that the Apostles would have been allowed to attack slavery in + the midst of heathen slaveholders. Why it is that slaveholders will + not allow a word to be breathed against slavery, I cannot, perhaps, + correctly judge. Abolitionists think that this unwillingness denotes + that man is unfit for absolute power over his fellow men. They + think as unfavorably of the influence of this power on the + slaveholder, as your own Jefferson did. They think that it tends to make + him impatient of contradiction, self-willed, supercilious, cruel, murderous, + devilish; and they think that they can establish this opinion, + not by the soundest philosophy only, but by the pages of many of + your own writers, and by those daily scenes of horrid brutality which + make the Southern States, in the sight both of God and man, one of + the most frightful and loathsome portions of the world—of the whole + world—barbarous as well as civilized. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE3_FN7"></a><a href="#FootE3_FN7">A</a>: I + will relate an incident, to show what a fiend even woman, gentle, lovely + woman, may become, after she has fallen under the sway of the demon of + slavery. Said a lady of Savannah, on a visit in the city of New York, + "I wish he (Rev. Dr. Samuel H. Cox) would come to Savannah. I should + love to see him tarred and feathered, and his head cut off and carried + on a pole around Savannah." This lady is a professing Christian. Her + language stirs me up to retaliate upon her, and to express the wish that + she would come to the town, and even to the dwelling, in which Dr. Cox + resides. She would find that man of God—that man of sanctified + genius—as glad to get his enemies into his hands, as she would be to + get him into the hands of his enemies:—not, however, for the purpose of + disgracing and decapitating them, but, that he might pour out upon them the + forgiveness and love of his generous and + <i>abolitionized</i> heart. In the city of New + York there are thousands of whole-souled abolitionists. What a striking + testimony is it, in behalf of their meekness and forbearance, when a + southern fury is perfectly secure, in belching out such words of wrath + in the midst of them! We abolitionists never love + our principles better, than when we see the slaveholder feeling safe + amongst us. No man has been more abusive of us than Governor McDuffie; + and yet, were he to travel in the Northern States, he would meet with no + unkindness at the hands of any abolitionist. On the other hand, let it be + known to the governor, that he has within his jurisdiction a prominent + abolitionist—one, whose heart of burning love has made him specially + anxious to persuade the unfortunate slaveholder to be just to himself, to + his fellow men, and to his God,—and the governor, true to the horrid + sentiments of his famous message, would advise that he be "put to + death without benefit of clergy." Let slaveholders say what they will about + our blood-thirstiness, there is not one of them who fears to put himself + in our power. The many of them, who have been beneath my roof, and the + roofs of other abolitionists, have manifested their confidence in our + kindness. Were a stranger to the institution of slavery to learn, in answer + to his inquiries, that "an abolitionist" is "an outlaw + amongst slaveholders," and that "a slaveholder" is "the kindly entertained + guest of abolitionists,"—here would be a puzzle indeed. But the + solution of it would not fail to be as honorable to the persecuted man + of peace, as it would be disgraceful to the bloody advocate and executioner + of Lynch law. + </p> + <p> + I need not render any more reasons why the Apostles did not specifically + attack slavery; but I will reply to a question, which I am + sure will be upon your lips all the time you are reading those I have + rendered. This question is, "If the Apostles did not make such an + attack on slavery, why may the American abolitionists?" I answer, + that the difference between the course of the abolitionists and of the + Apostles, in this matter, is justified by the difference in their + circumstances. Professor Hodge properly says, that our course should be + like theirs, "unless it can be shown that their circumstances were so + different from ours, as to make the rule of duty different in the two + cases." And he as properly adds, "the obligation to point out and + establish this difference rests upon the abolitionists." + + </p> + <p> + The reasons I have given, why the Apostles did not directly attack + slavery, do not apply to the abolitionists. The arm of civil power does + not restrain us from attacking it. To open our lips against the policy + and institutions of civil government is not certain death. A despotic + government restricted the efforts of the Apostles to do good. But + we live under governments which afford the widest scope for exertions + to bless our fellow men and honor God. Now, if we may not + avail ourselves of this advantage, simply because the Apostles did + not have it to avail themselves of, then whatever other interests may + prosper under a republican government, certain it is, that the cause + + of truth and righteousness is not to be benefited by it. Far better + never to have had our boasted form of government, if, whilst it + extends the freedom and multiplies the facilities of the wicked, it + relieves the righteous of none of the restrictions of a despotic + government. Again, there is a religious conscience all over this land, and + an enlightened and gospel sense of right and wrong; on which we + can and do (as in your Introduction you concede is the fact) bring + our arguments against slavery to bear with mighty power. But, on + the other hand, the creating of such a conscience and such a sense, + in the heathen and semi-heathen amongst whom they lived and labored, + was the first, and appropriate, and principal work of the Apostles. + To employ, therefore, no other methods for the moral and religious + improvement of the people of the United States, than were employed + by the Apostles for that of the people of the Roman empire, is as + absurd as it would be to put the highest and lowest classes in a school + to the same lessons; or a raw apprentice to those higher branches of + his trade which demand the skill of an experienced workman. + + </p> + <p> + I am here reminded of what Professor Hodge says were the means + relied on by the Saviour and Apostles for abolishing slavery. "It + was," says he, "by teaching the true nature, dignity, equality, and + destiny of men; by inculcating the principles of justice and love; + and by leaving these principles to produce their legitimate effects in + ameliorating the condition of all classes of society." I would not + speak disparagingly of such a course of instruction; so far from it, + I am ready to admit that it is indispensable for the removal of evils, + in every age and among every people. When general instructions + of this character shall have ceased to be given, then will all + wholesome reforms have ceased also. But, I cannot approve of the + Professor's object in this remark. This object is to induce his readers + to believe, that these abstract and general instructions are all that is + needed to effect the termination of slavery. Now, I maintain that one + thing more is wanting; and that is, the application of these + instructions—of the principles contained in them—to the evil in hand. As + well may it be supposed, that the mechanic can accomplish his work + without the application, and by the mere possession, of his tools, as + that a given reformation can be effected by unapplied general + principles. Of these principles, American philanthropists have been + possessed from time immemorial; and yet all the while American slavery + has been flourishing and growing strong. Of late, however, these + principles have been brought to bear upon the system, and it + manifestly is already giving way. The groans of the monster prove that + + those rays of truth, which did not disturb him whilst they continued + to move in the parallel lines of abstractions and generalities, make it + quite too hot for him since they are converged to a burning focus + upon his devoted head. Why is it, for example, that the influence + of the Boston Recorder and New-York Observer—why is it, that the + influence of most of our titled divines—is decidedly hostile to + the abolition of slavery? It is not because they are deficient in + just general sentiments and principles respecting man's duties to + God and his fellow man. It is simply because they stand opposed + to the application of these sentiments and principles to the evil in + question; or, in other words, stand opposed to the Anti-Slavery Society, + which is the chosen lens of Divine Providence for turning these + sentiments and principles, with all the burning, irresistible power of + their concentration, against a giant wickedness. What is the work + of the Temperance Societies, but to make a specific application of + general truths and principles to the vice of intemperance? And the + fact, that from the time of Noah's intoxication, until the organization + of the American Temperance Society, the desolating tide of intemperance + had been continually swelling, proves that this reliance on + unapplied principles, however sound—this "faith without works"—is + utterly vain. Nathan found that nothing, short of a specific application + of the principles of righteousness, would answer in the case + of the sin of adultery. He had to abandon all generalities and circuitousness, + and come plump upon the royal sinner with his "Thou + art the man." Those divines, whose policy it is to handle slaveholders + "with gloves," if they must handle them at all, doubtless + regard Nathan as an exceedingly impolite preacher. + + </p> + <p> + But, not only is it far less difficult to instruct the people of the + United States than it was the people of the Roman Empire, in the + sin of slavery; it is also—for the reason that the sin is ours, to a + far greater extent, than it was theirs—much more important for us + than for them to be instructed in it. They had no share in the government + which upheld it. They could not abolish it by law. But, + on the other hand, the people of the United States are themselves + the government of their country. They are the co-sovereigns of their + nation. They uphold slavery by law, and they can put it down by + law. In this point of view, therefore, slavery is an incomparably + greater sin in us, than it was in them. + + </p> + <p> + Only one other reason will be given why it is more needful to + overthrow American, than it was to overthrow Roman slavery. The + Church was then but a handful of "strangers scattered throughout" + + the heathen world. It was made up of those who had little influence, + and who were esteemed "the filth of the world, and the offscouring of + all things." It had, probably, little, if any thing, to do with slavery, + except to suffer its rigors in the persons of many of its members. + But here, the Church, comprising no very small proportion of the + whole population, and exerting a mighty influence for good or ill on + the residue, is tainted, yes, rotten with slavery. In this contrast, we + not only see another reason why the destruction of American slavery + is more important than was that of Roman slavery; but we also see, + that the Apostles could have been little, if at all, actuated by that + motive, which is more urgent than any other in the breasts of the + American abolitionists—the motive of purging the Church of slavery. + + </p> + <p> + To return to what you say of the abominations and horrors of + Greek and Roman slavery:—I should be doing you great injustice, + were I to convey the idea that you approve of them. It is admitted + that you disapprove of them; and, it is also admitted, that no responsibility + for them rests on the relation of slaveholder and slave, if + that relation have, as you labor to show, the stamp of Divine approbation. + You say, that slavery, like marriage, is an institution sanctioned + by the New Testament; and that, therefore, neither for the + evils which attend it, nor for any other cause, is it to be argued + against. This is sound reasoning, on your part; and, if your premises + are correct, there is no resisting your deduction. We are, in + that case, not only not to complain of the institution of slavery, but + we are to be thankful for it. Considering, however, that the whole + fabric of your argument, in the principal or New Testament division + of your book, is based on the alleged fact that the New Testament approves + of slavery, it seems to me that you have contented yourself, + and sought to make your readers contented, with very slender evidences + of the truth of this proposition. These evidences are, mainly—that + the New Testament does not declare slavery to be a sin: and, + that the Apostles enjoin upon masters and servants their respective + duties; and this, too, in the same connexion in which they make + similar injunctions upon those who stand in the confessedly proper relations + of life—the husband and wife, the parent and child. Your other + evidences, that the New Testament approves of slavery, unimportant + as they are, will not be left unnoticed. + + </p> + <p> + I have attempted to show, that the omission of the New Testament + to declare slavery to be a sin, is not proof that it is not a sin. I pass + on to show, that the Apostolic injunction of duties upon masters and + servants does not prove that slavery is sinless. + + </p> + <p> + I have now reached another grand fallacy in your book. It is also + found in Professor Hodge's article. You, gentlemen, take the liberty + to depart from our standard English translation of the Bible, and to + substitute "slaveholder" for "master"—"slave" for "servant"—and, + in substance, "emperor" for "ruler"—and "subject of an imperial + government" for "subject of civil government generally." I + know that this substitution well suits your purposes: but, I know not + by what right you make it. Professor Hodge tells the abolitionists, + certainly without much respect for either their intelligence or piety, that + "it will do no good (for them) to attempt to tear the Bible to pieces." + There is but too much evidence, that he himself has not entirely + refrained from the folly and crime, which he is so ready to impute to + others. + + </p> + <p> + I will proceed to offer some reasons for the belief, that when the + Apostles enjoined on masters and servants their respective duties, + they had reference to servitude in general, and not to any modification + of it. + + </p> + <p> + 1st. You find passages in the New Testament, where you think + <i>despotes</i> refers to a person + who is a slaveholder, and <i>doulos</i> + to a person who is a slave. Admit that you are right: but this (which seems to + be your only ground for it) does not justify you in translating these + words "slaveholder" and "slave," whenever it may be advantageous + to your side of the question to have them thus translated. These + words, have a great variety of meanings. For instance, there are + passages in the New Testament where + <i>despotes</i> means "God"—Jesus + Christ"—Head of a family:" and where + <i>doulos</i> means "a + minister or agent"—a subject of a king"—a disciple or follower + of Christ." <i>Despotes</i> and + <i>doulos</i> are the words used + in the original of the expression: "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart + in peace:" <i>doulos</i> in that of the + expressions, "servant of Christ," and "let him be servant of all." Profane + writers also use these words in various senses. My full belief is, that these + words were used in both a generic and special sense, as is the word corn, + which denotes bread-stuffs in general, and also a particular kind of them; + as is the word meat, the meaning of which is, sometimes, confined to flesh + that is eaten, and, at other times, as is frequently the case in the + Scriptures, extends to food in general; and, as is the word servant, + which is suitable, either in reference to a particular form of servitude, + or to servitude in general. There is a passage in the second chapter + of Acts, which is, of itself, perhaps, sufficient to convince an unbiased + mind, that the Apostles used the word + <i>doulos</i> in a, generic, as well as + + in a special sense. <i>Doulos</i> and + <i>doule</i> are the words in the phrase: + "And on my servants and on my handmaidens." A reference to the prophecy + as it stands; in Joel 2: 28, 29, makes it more obvious, that + persons in servitude are referred to under the words + <i>doulos</i> and + <i>doule</i>; and, that the predicted + blessing was to be shed upon persons of all + ages, classes, and conditions—upon old men and young men—upon + sons and daughters—and upon man-servants and maid-servants. + But, under the interpretation of those, who, like Professor Hodge + and yourself, confine the meaning of + <i>doulos</i> and + <i>doule</i> to a species of + servants, the prophecy would have reference to persons of all ages, + classes, and conditions—<em>excepting certain descriptions of + servants</em>. Under this interpretation, we are brought to the absurd + conclusion, that the spirit is to be poured out upon the master and his + slaves—<em>but not upon his hired servants</em>. + + </p> + <p> + I trust that enough has been said, under this my first head, to show + that the various senses in which the words + <i>despotes</i> and + <i>doulos</i> are employed, + justify me in taking the position, that whenever we meet with + them, we are to determine, from the nature of the case, and from the + connexion in which they are used, whether they refer to servitude in + general, or to a species of it. + + </p> + <p> + 2d. The confinement of the meaning of the words in question + supposes, what neither religion nor common sense allows us to suppose, + that slaveholders and slaves, despots and those in subjection to + them, were such especial favorites of the Apostles, as to obtain from + them specific instructions in respect to their relative duties, whilst + all other masters and servants, and all other rulers and subjects, + throughout all future time, were left unprovided with such instructions. + According to this supposition, when slavery and despotism shall, + agreeably to Professor Hodge's expectations, have entirely ceased, + there will be not one master nor servant, not one ruler nor subject in + the whole earth, to fall, as such, under the Apostolic injunctions. + + </p> + <p> + 3d. You admit that there were hirelings, in a community of primitive + believers; and I admit, for the moment, that there were slaves + in it. Now, under my interpretation of the Apostolic injunction, all + husbands, all wives, all parents, all children, and all servants, in this + community, are told their respective duties: but, under yours, these + duties are enjoined on all husbands, all wives, all parents, all children, + and a <em>part of the servants</em>. May we not reasonably complain + of your interpretation, that it violates analogy? + + </p> + <p> + Imagine the scene, in which a father, in the Apostolic age, assembles + his family to listen to a letter from the glowing Peter, or "such + + an one as Paul the aged." The letter contains instructions respecting + the relative duties of life. The venerable pair, who stand in the + conjugal and parental relations, receive, with calm thankfulness, what + is addressed to themselves;—the bright-eyed little ones are eager to + know what the Apostle says to children—a poor slave blesses God + for his portion of the Apostolic counsel;—and the scene would be + one of unmingled joy, if the writer had but addressed hired servants, + as well as slaves. One of the group goes away to weep, because the + Apostle had remembered the necessities of all other classes of men, + and forgotten those of the hireling. Sir, do you believe that the Apostle + was guilty of such an omission? I rejoice that my side of the + question between us, does not call for the belief of what is so improbable + and unnatural—and, withal, so dishonoring to the memory of the + Apostle. + + </p> + <p> + 4th. Another reason for believing, that the Apostles intended no + such limitation as that which you impose upon their words, is, that + their injunctions are as applicable to the other classes of persons + occupying these relations, as they are to the particular class to which + you confine them. The hired servant, as well as the slave, needs to + be admonished of the sins of "eye service" and "purloining;" and + the master of voluntary, as well as involuntary servants, needs to be + admonished to "give that which is just and equal." The ruler in a + republic, or, in a limited monarchy, as well as the despot, requires to + be reminded, that he is to be "a minister of God for good." So the + subject of one kind of civil government, as well as that of another, + needs to be told to be "subject unto the higher powers." + + </p> + <p> + I need not extend my remarks to prove, that + <i>despotes</i> and + <i>doulos</i> + are, in the case before us, to be taken in their comprehensive sense + of master and servant: and, clearly, therefore, the abolitionist is not + guilty of violating your rule, "not to interfere with a civil relation (in + another place, you say, 'any of the existing relations of life') for which, + and to regulate which, either Christ or his Apostles have prescribed + regulations." He believes, as fully as yourself, that the relation of + master and servant is approved of God. It is the slavery modification + of it—the slaveholder's abuse and perversion of the relation, in + reducing the servant to a chattel—which, he believes, is not approved + of God. + + </p> + <p> + For the sake of the argument, I will admit, that the slave alone, of + all classes of servants, was favored with specific instructions from the + Apostles: and then, how should we account for the selection? In no + other way, can I conceive, than, on the ground, that his lot is so + + peculiarly hard—so much harder than that of persons under other forms + of servitude—that he needs, whilst they do not, Apostolic counsel and + advice to keep him just, and patient, and submissive. Let me be + spared from the sin of reducing a brother man to such a lot. Your + doctrine, therefore, that the Apostles addressed slaves only, and not + servants in general, would not, were its correctness admitted, lift you + out of all the difficulties in your argument. + + </p> + <p> + Again, does it necessarily follow from this admission, that the relation + of slaveholder and slave is sinless? Was the despotism of the + Roman government sinless? I do not ask whether the <em>abuses</em> of + civil government, in that instance, were sinless. But, I ask, was a + government, despotic in its constitution, depriving all its subjects of + political power, and extending absolute control over their property + and persons—was such a government, independently of the consideration + of its <em>abuses</em>, (if indeed we may speak of the abuses of what is + in itself an <em>abuse</em>,) sinless? I am aware, that Prof. Hodge says, + that it was so: and, when he classes despotism and slavery with + <i>adiaphora</i>, "things indifferent;" + and allows no more moral character to them than to a table or a broomstick, I + trust no good man envies his optics. May I not hope that you, Mr. Smylie, + perceive a difference between despotism and an "indifferent thing." May I not + hope, that you will, both as a Republican and a Christian, take the ground, + that despotism has a moral character, and a bad one? When our fathers + prayed, and toiled, and bled, to obtain for themselves and their children + the right of self-government, and to effect their liberation from a + power, which, in the extent and rigor of its despotism, is no more to + be compared to the Roman government, than the "little finger" to the + "loins," I doubt not, that they felt that despotism had a moral, and + a very bad moral character. And so would Prof. Hodge have felt, + had he stood by their side, instead of being one of their ungrateful + sons. I say ungrateful—for, who more so, than he who publishes + doctrines that disparage the holy cause in which they were embarked, + and exhibits them, as contending for straws, rather than for principles? + Tell me, how long will this Republic endure after our people shall + have imbibed the doctrine, that the <i>nature</i> of civil + government is an indifferent thing: and that the poet was right when he said, + + </p> + <div class="lg">"For forms of government let <em>fools</em> contest?"<br><br></div> + <p> + This, however, is but one of many doctrines of ruinous tendency to + the cause of civil liberty, advanced by pro-slavery writers to sustain + their system of oppression. + + </p> + <p> + It would surely be superfluous to go into proofs, that the Roman + government was vicious and wicked in its constitution and nature. + Nevertheless, the Apostle enjoined submission to it, and taught its + subjects how to demean themselves under it. Here, then, we have + an instance, in which we cannot argue the sinlessness of a relation, + from the fact of Apostolic injunctions on those standing in it. Take + another instance. The Chaldeans went to a foreign land, and enslaved + its people—as members of your guilty partnership have done + for some of the slaves you now own, and for the ancestors of others. + And God destroyed the Chaldeans expressly "for all their evil that + they had done in Zion." But, wicked as they were, for having instituted + this relation between themselves and the Jews, God, nevertheless, + tells the Jews to submit to it. He tells them, "Serve the King + of Babylon." He even says, "seek the peace of the city, whither I + have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord + for it; for, in the peace thereof, shall ye have peace." Here then, + we have another instance, in addition to that of the Roman despot + and his subjects, in which the Holy Spirit prescribed regulations for + wicked relations. You will, at least, allow, that the relation established + by the Chaldeans between themselves and the captive Jews, + was wicked. But, you will perhaps say, that this is not a relation + coming within the contemplation of your rule. Your rule speaks of + a civil relation, and also of the existing relations of life. But, the + relation in question, being substantially that of slaveholder and slave, + is, according to your own showing, a civil relation. Perhaps you will + say, it is not an "existing relation of life." But what do you mean + by "an existing relation of life?" Do you mean, that it is a relation + approved of God? If you do, and insist that the relation of slaveholder + and slave is "an existing relation of life," then you are guilty + of begging the great question between us. Your rule, therefore, can + mean nothing more than this—that any relation is rightful, for which + the Bible prescribes regulations. But the relation referred to between + the Chaldeans and Jews, proves the falsity of the rule. Again, + when a man compels me to go with him, is not the compelled relation + between him and me a sinful one? And the relation of robber and + robbed, which a man institutes between himself and me, is not this + also sinful? But, the Bible has prescribed regulations for the relations + in both these cases. In the one, it requires me to "go with + him twain;" and, in the other, to endure patiently even farther spoliation + and, "let him have (my) cloak also." In these cases, also, do + + we see the falsity of your rule—and none the less clearly, because + the relations in question are of brief duration. + + </p> + <p> + Before concluding my remarks on this topic, let me say, that your + doctrine, that God has prescribed no rules for the behaviour of persons + in any other than the just relations of life, reflects no honor on His + compassion. Why, even we "cut-throat" abolitionists are not so + hard-hearted as to overlook the subjects of a relation, because it is wicked. + Pitying, as we do, our poor colored brethren, who are forced into a + wicked relation, which, by its very nature and terms, and not by its + <em>abuses</em>, as you would say, has robbed them of their all—even we + would, nevertheless, tell them to "resist not evil"—to be obedient + unto their own masters"—not purloining, but showing all good + fidelity." We would tell them, as God told the captive Jews, to + "seek the peace of those, whither they are carried away captives, + and to pray unto the Lord" for them: and our hope of their emancipation + is not, as it is most slanderously and wickedly reported to be, + in their deluging the South with blood: but, it is, to use again those + sweet words of inspiration, that "in the peace thereof they shall have + peace." We do not communicate with the slave; but, if we did, we + would teach him, that our hope of his liberation is grounded largely + in his patience, and that, if he would have us drop his cause from our + hands, he has but to take it into his own, and attempt to accomplish + by violence, that which we seek to effect through the power of truth + and love on the understanding and heart of his master. + + </p> + <p> + Having disposed of your reasons in favor of the rightfulness of the + relation of slaveholder and slave, I will offer a few reasons for believing + that it is not rightful. + + </p> + <p> + 1st. My strongest reason is, that the great and comprehensive + principles, and the whole genius and spirit of Christianity, are opposed to + slavery. + + </p> + <p> + 2d. In the case of Pharoah and his Jewish slaves, God manifested + his abhorrence of the relation of slavery. The fact that the slavery + in this case was political, instead of domestic, and, therefore, of a + milder type than that of Southern slavery, does not forbid my reasoning + from the one form to the other. Indeed, if I may receive your + declaration on this point, for the truth, I need not admit that the type + of the slavery in question is milder than that of Southern slavery;—for + you say, that "their (the Jews) condition was that of the most + abject bondage or slavery." But the supposition that it is milder, + being allowed to be correct, would only prove, that God's abhorrence + of Southern bondage as much exceeds that which he expressed of + + Egyptian bondage, as the one system is more full than the other of + oppression and cruelty. + + </p> + <p> + We learn from the Bible, that it was not because of the <em>abuses</em> + of the Egyptian system of bondage, but, because of its sinful nature, + that God required its abolition. He did not command Pharaoh to + cease from the <em>abuses</em> of the system, and to correct his + administration of it, but to cease from the system itself. "I have heard," + says God, "the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in + bondage;"—not whom the Egyptians, availing themselves of their + absolute power, compel to make brick without straw, and seek to + waste and exterminate by the murder of their infant children;—but + simply "whom the Egyptians keep in bondage." These hardships + and outrages were but the leaves and branches. The root of the + abomination was the bondage itself, the assertion of absolute and + slaveholding power by "a new king over Egypt, which knew not + Joseph." In the next verse God says: "I will rid you"—not only + from the burdens and abuses, as you would say, of bondage,—but + "out of their (the Egyptians) bondage" itself—out of the relation in + which the Egyptians oppressively and wickedly hold you. + + </p> + <p> + God sends many messages to Pharaoh. In no one of them does + He reprove him for the abuses of the relation into which he had forced + the Jews. In no one of them is he called on to correct the evils + which had grown out of that relation. But, in every one, does God + go to the root of the evil, and command Pharaoh, "let my people + go"—"let my people go, that they may serve me." The abolitionist + is reproachfully called an "ultraist" and "an immediatist." It + seems that God was both, when dealing with this royal slaveholder:—for + He commanded Pharaoh, not to mitigate the bondage of the + Israelites, but to deliver them from it—and that, too, immediately. + The system of slavery is wicked in God's sight, and, therefore, did + He require of Pharaoh its immediate abandonment. The phrase, + "let my people go, that they may serve me," shows most strikingly + one feature of resemblance between Egyptian and American slavery. + Egyptian slavery did not allow its subjects to serve God, neither does + American. The Egyptian master stood between his slave and their + God: and how strikingly and awfully true is it, that the American + master occupies the like position! Not only is the theory of slavery, + the world over, in the face of God's declaration; "all souls are mine:" + but American slaveholders have brought its practical character to + respond so fully to its theory—they have succeeded, so well, in excluding + + the light and knowledge of God from the minds of their slaves—that + they laugh at His claim to "all souls." + + </p> + <p> + 3d. Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthian Church, tells servants—say + slaves, to suit your views—if they may be free, to prefer + freedom to bondage. But if it be the duty of slaves to prefer freedom + to bondage, how clearly is it the correlative duty of the master to + grant it to him! You interpret the Apostle's language, in this case, as + I do; and it is not a little surprising, that, with your interpretation of + it, you can still advocate slavery. You admit, that Paul says—I use + your own words—"a state of freedom, on the whole, is the best." + Now, it seems to me, that this admission leaves you without excuse, + for defending slavery. You have virtually yielded the ground. And + this admission is especially fatal to your strenuous endeavors to class + the relation of master and slave with the confessedly proper relations + of life, and to show that, like these, it is approved of God. Would + Paul say to the child, "a state of freedom" from parental government + "on the whole is the best?" Would he say to the wife, "a state of + freedom from your conjugal bonds" on the whole is the best? + Would he say to the child and wife, in respect to this freedom, "use + it rather?" Would he be thus guilty of attempting to annihilate the + family relation? + + </p> + <p> + Does any one wonder, that the Apostle did not use stronger language, + in advising to a choice and enjoyment of freedom? It is + similar to that which a pious, intelligent, and prudent abolitionist + would now use under the like circumstances. Paul was endeavoring + to make the slave contented with his hard lot, and to show him how + unimportant is personal liberty, compared with liberation from spiritual + bondage: and this explains why it is, that he spoke so briefly and + moderately of the advantages of liberty. His advice to the slave to + accept the boon of freedom, was a purely incidental remark: and we + cannot infer from it, how great stress he would have laid on the evils + of slavery, and on the blessings of liberty, in a discourse treating + directly and mainly of those subjects. What I have previously said, + however, shows that it would, probably, have been in vain, and worse + than in vain, for him to have come out, on any occasion whatever, + with an exposition of the evils of slavery. + + </p> + <p> + On the thirty-second page of your book, you say, "Masters cannot, + according to the command of Christ, render to their slaves that + which is just and equal, if you abolish the relation; for, then they + will cease to be masters." Abolish any of the relations for which + regulations are provided "in the New Testament, and, in effect, you + + abolish some of the laws of Christ." But, we have just seen that + Paul was in favor of abolishing the relation of master and slave; + which, as you insist, is a relation for which regulations are provided + in the New Testament. It is, therefore, irresistibly deduced from + your own premises, that he was in favor of abolishing "the laws of + Christ." It would require but little, if any, extension of your doctrine, + to make it wrong to remove all the graven images out of a nation. + For, in that event, the law of God against bowing down to them + would have nothing left to act upon. It would thenceforth be inoperative. + + </p> + <p> + 4th. Another reason for believing, that the Apostles did not approve + of the slavery modification of servitude, is found in Paul's injunction; + "Remember them that are in bonds as bound with them." I admit, + that it is probable that others as well as slaves, are referred to in + this injunction: but it certainly is not probable, that others, to the + exclusion of slaves, are referred to. But, even on the supposition + that slaves are not referred to, but those only who are tenants of + prisons, let me ask you which you would rather be—a slave or a + prisoner, as Paul probably was when he wrote this injunction?—and + whether your own description of the wretched condition of the Roman + slave, does not prepare you to agree with me, that if the Apostle could + ask sympathy for the prisoner, who, with all his deprivations, has still + the protection of law, it is not much more due to the poor slave, who + has no protection whatever against lawless tyranny and caprice! + + </p> + <p> + But to proceed, if slaves are the only, or even a part of the persons + referred to in the injunction, then you will observe, that the Apostle + does not call for the exercise of sympathy towards those who are + said to be suffering what you call the <em>abuses</em> of slavery; but + towards those who are so unhappy as to be but the subjects of it—towards + those who are "in bonds." The bare relation of a slave is itself so + grievous, as to call for compassion towards those who bear it. Now, + if this relation were to be classed with the approved relations of life, + why should the Apostle have undertaken to awaken compassion for + persons, simply because they were the subject, of it? He never + asked for sympathy for persons, simply because they were parties to + the relations of husband and wife, parent and child. It may be + worthy of notice, that the injunction under consideration is found in + Paul's letter to the Jewish Christians. This attempt to awaken pity + in behalf of the slave, and to produce abhorrence of slavery, was + made upon these, and not upon the Gentile Christians; because, perhaps, + that they, who had always possessed the Oracles of God, could + + bear it; and they who had just come up out of the mire of heathenism, + could not. If this explanation be just, it enforces my argument for + ascribing to causes, other than the alleged sinfulness of the institution, + the Apostle's omission to utter specific rebukes of slavery. + + </p> + <p> + 5th. Another reason for believing that the slavery modification of + servitude should not be classed with the confessedly proper relations + with which you class it, is the conclusive one, that it interferes with, + and tends to subvert, and does actually subvert, these relations. The + Apostles prescribe duties, which are necessary to sustain these relations, + and make them fruitful sources of happiness to the parties to + them. Among these duties are the following: "Wives, submit yourselves + to your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord"—"Children, + obey your parents"—"Husbands, dwell with them" (your wives). + But slavery, where it does not make obedience to these commands + utterly impossible, conditions it on the permission of usurpers, who + have presumed to step between the laws of God and those on whom + they are intended to bear. Slavery, not the law of God, practically + determines whether husbands shall dwell with their wives: and an + amount of anguish, which God alone can compute, testifies that + slavery has thus determined, times without number, that husbands + shall not dwell with their wives. A distinguished gentleman, who + has been much at the South, is spending a little time in my family. + He told me but this day, that he had frequently known the air filled + with shrieks of anguish for a whole mile around the spot, where, under + the hammer of the auctioneer, the members of a family were undergoing + an endless separation from each other. It was but last week, + that a poor fugitive reached a family, in which God's commands, + "Hide the outcasts, betray not him that wandereth"—"Hide not + thyself from thy own flesh"—are not a dead letter. The heaviest + burden of his heart is, that he has not seen his wife for five years, + and does not expect to see her again: his master, in Virginia, having + sold him to a Georgian, and his wife to an inhabitant of the District + of Columbia. Whilst the law of God requires wives to "submit + themselves to their husbands, as it is fit in the Lord;" the law of + slavery commands them, under the most terrific penalties, to submit + to every conceivable form of violence, and the most loathsome pollution, + "as it is fit" in the eyes of slaveholders—no small proportion + of whom are, as a most natural fruit of slavery, abandoned to brutality + and lust. The laws of South Carolina and Georgia make it an + offence punishable with death, "if any slave shall presume to strike a + white person." By the laws of Maryland and Kentucky, it is enacted + + "if any negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond or free, shall, at any + time, lift his or her hand in opposition to any person, not being a negro + or Indian, he or she shall, in the first-mentioned State, suffer the + penalty of cropped ears; and, in the other, thirty-nine lashes on his + or her bare back, well laid on, by order of the justice." In Louisiana + there is a law—for the enactment of which, slavery is, of course, + responsible—in these words: "Free people of color ought never to + insult or strike white people, nor presume to conceive themselves + equal to the whites: but, on the contrary, they ought <em>to yield to them + on every occasion</em>, and never speak or answer them but with respect, + under the penalty of imprisonment, according to the nature of the + offence." The following extract of a letter, written to me from the + South, by a gentleman who still resides there, serves to show how + true it is, that "on every occasion," the colored person must yield to + the white, and, especially, if the white be clothed with the authority + of an ambassador of Christ. "A negro was executed in Autauga + Co., not long since, for the murder of his master. The latter, it + seems, attempted to violate the wife of his slave in his presence, + when the negro enraged, smote the wretch to the ground. And this + master—this brute—this fiend—was a preacher of the gospel, in + regular standing!" In a former part of this communication, I said + enough to show, that slavery prevents children from complying with + the command to obey their parents. But, in reply to what I have + said of these outrages on the rights of husbands and wives, parents + and children, you maintain, that they are no part of the system of + slavery. Slaveholders, however, being themselves judges, they are a + part of it, or, at least, are necessary to uphold it; else they would not + by deliberate, solemn legislation, authorize them. But, be this as it + may, it is abundantly proven, that slavery is, essentially and inevitably, + at war with the sacred rights of the family state. Let me say, + then, in conclusion under this head, that in whatever other company + you put slavery, place it not in that of the just relations of husband + and wife, parent and child. They can no more company with each + other, than can fire with water. Their natures are not only totally + opposite to, but destructive of, each other. + + </p> + <p> + 6th. The laws, to which you refer on the sixty-eighth page of your + book, tend to prove, and, so far as your admission of the necessity + of them goes, do prove, that the relation of slaveholder and slave + does not deserve a place, in the class of innocent and proper relations. + You there say, that the writings of "such great and good + men as Wesley, Edwards, Porteus, Paley, Horsley, Scott, Clark, + + Wilberforce, Sharp, Clarkson, Fox, Johnson, and a host of as good + if not equally great, men of later date," have made it necessary for + the safety of the institution of slavery, to pass laws, forbidding millions + of our countrymen to read. You should have, also, mentioned + the horrid sanctions of these laws—stripes, imprisonment, and death. + Now, these laws disable the persons on whom they bear, from fulfilling + God's commandments, and, especially, His commandment to + "search the Scriptures." They are, therefore, wicked. What then, + in its moral character, must be a relation, which, to sustain it, requires + the aid of wicked laws?—and, how entirely out of place must it be, + when you class it with those just relations of life, that, certainly, + require none of the support, which, you admit, is indispensable to + the preservation of the relation of slaveholder and slave! It is + true, that you attempt to justify the enactment of the laws in question, + by the occasions which you say led to it. But, every law + forbidding what God requires, is a wicked law—under whatever pretexts, + or for whatever purposes, it may have been enacted. Let the + occasions which lead to a wicked measure be what they may, the + wickedness of the measure is still sufficient to condemn it. + + </p> + <p> + In the case before us, we see how differently different persons are + affected by the same fact. Whilst the stand taken against slavery + by Wesley, Edwards, and the other choice spirits you enumerate, + serves but to inspire you with concern for its safety, it would, of itself, + and without knowing their reasons for it, be well nigh enough to destroy + my confidence in the institution. Let me ask you, Sir, whether + it would not be more reasonable for those, who are so industriously + engaged in insulating the system of American slavery, and shrouding + it with darkness, to find less fault with the bright and burning light + which the writings of the wisest and best men pour upon it, and more + with the system which "hateth the light, neither cometh to the light." + + </p> + <p> + You would have your readers believe, that the blessings of education + are to be withheld from your slaves—only "until the storm shall + be overblown," and that you hope that "Satan's being let loose will + be but for a little season." I say nothing more about the last expression, + than that I most sincerely desire you may penitently regret + having attributed the present holy excitement against slavery to the + influences of Satan. By "the storm" you, doubtless, mean the excitement + produced by the publications and efforts of the American + Anti-Slavery Society. Now, I will not suppose that you meant to + deceive your readers on this point. You are, nevertheless, inexcusable + for using language so strikingly calculated to lead them into + + error. It is not yet three years since that Society was organized: + but the statute books of some of the slave States contain laws, forbidding + the instruction of slaves in reading, which were enacted long + before you and I were born. As long ago as the year 1740, South + Carolina passed a law, forbidding to teach slaves to write. Georgia + did so in 1770. In the year 1800, thirty-three years before "the + storm" of the Anti-Slavery Society began to blow, South Carolina + passed a law, forbidding "assemblies of slaves, free negroes, &c., + for the purpose of mental instruction." In the Revised Code of Virginia + of 1819, is a law similar to that last mentioned. In the year + 1818, the city of Savannah forbade by an ordinance, the instruction + of all persons of color, either free or bond, in reading and writing. + I need not specify any more of these man-crushing, soul-killing, + God-defying laws;—nor need I refer again to the shocking penalties + annexed to the violation of most of them. I conclude my remarks + under this head, with the advice, that, in the next edition of your book, + you do not assign the anti-slavery excitement, which is now spreading + over our land, as the occasion of the passage of the laws in question. + + </p> + <p> + 7th. The only other reason I will mention for believing, that the + slavery modification of servitude is not approved of God, is, that it + has never been known <em>to work well</em>—never been known to promote + man's happiness or God's glory. Wickedness and wretchedness are, + so uniformly, the product of slavery, that they must be looked upon, + not as its abuses, but as its legitimate fruits. Whilst all admit, that + the relations of the family state are, notwithstanding their frequent + perversions, full of blessings to the world; and that, but for them, + the world would be nothing better than one scene of pollution and + wo;—to what history of slavery will you refer me, for proof of its + beneficent operation? Will it be to the Bible history of Egyptian + slavery? No—for that informs us of the exceeding wickedness and + wretchedness of Egyptian slavery. Will it be to the history of + Greek and Roman slavery? No—for your own book acknowledges + its unutterable horrors and abominations. Will you refer me to the + history of the West Indies for proofs of the happy fruits of slavery? + Not until the earth is no more, will its polluted and bloody pages + cease to testify against slavery. And, when we have come down to + American slavery, you will not even open the book which records + such facts, as that its subjects are forbidden to be joined in wedlock, + and to read the Bible. No—you will not presume to look for a + single evidence of the benign influences of a system, where, by the + admission of your own ecclesiastical bodies, it has turned millions of + + men into heathen. I say nothing now of your beautiful and harmless + theories of slavery:—but this I say, that when you look upon slavery + as it has existed, or now exists, either amidst the darkness of Mahommedanism + or the light of Christianity, you dare not, as you hope + for the Divine favor, say that it is a Heaven-descended institution; + and that, notwithstanding it is like Ezekiel's roll, "written within + and without with lamentations and mourning and wo," it, nevertheless, + bears the mark of being a boon from God to man. + + </p> + <p> + Having disposed of your "strong reasons" for the position, that + the New Testament authorizes slavery, I proceed to consider your + remaining reasons for it. + + </p> + <p> + Because it does not appear, that our Saviour and the Apostle + Peter told certain centurions, who, for the sake of the argument, I + will admit were slaveholders, that slaveholding is sinful, you argue, + and most confidently too, that it is not sinful. But, it does not + appear, that the Saviour and the Apostle charged <em>any</em> sinful + practices upon them. Then, by your logic, all their other practices, as well + as their slaveholding, were innocent, and these Roman soldiers were + literally perfect.—Again; how do you know that the Saviour and the + Apostle did not tell them, on the occasion you refer to, that they were + sinners for being slaveholders? The fact, that the Bible does not + inform us that they told them so, does not prove that they did not; + much less does it prove, that they did not tell them so subsequently + to their first interview with them. And again, the admission that + they did not specifically attack slavery, at any of their interviews + with the centurions, or on any other occasions whatever, would not + justify the inference, that it is sinless. I need not repeat the reasoning + which makes the truth of this remark apparent. + + </p> + <p> + You refer to the Saviour's declaration of the unequaled faith of + one of these centurions, with the view of making it appear that a + person of so great faith could not be a great sinner. But, how + long had he exercised this, or, indeed, any Christian faith? That + he was on good terms with the Jews, and had built them a synagogue, + is quite as strong evidence, that he had not, as that he had, + previously to that time, believed in Jesus:—and, if he had not, then + his faith, however strong, and his conversion, however decided, are + nothing towards proving that slavery is sinless. + + </p> + <p> + It is evident, that the Apostle was sent to Cornelius for the single + purpose of inculcating the doctrine of the remission of sin, through + faith in Christ. + + </p> + <p> + I proceed to examine another of your arguments. From Paul's + + declaration to the Elders at Miletus, "I have not shunned to declare + unto you all the counsel of God," taken in connexion with the fact, + that the Bible does not inform us that he spoke to them of slaveholding, + you confidently and exultingly infer that it is innocent. Here, + again, you prove too much, and therefore, prove nothing. It does + not appear that he specified a hundredth part of their duties. If he + did not tell them to abstain from slaveholding, neither did he tell + them to abstain from games and theatres. But, his silence about + slaveholding proves to your mind its sinlessness: equally then + should his silence about games and theatres satisfy you of their innocence. + Two radical errors run through a great part of your book. + They are, that the Apostle gave specific instructions concerning all + duties, and that the Bible contains these instructions. But, for these + errors, your book would be far less objectionable than it is. I might, + perhaps, rather say, that but for these, you could not have made up + your book. + + </p> + <p> + And now, since Paul's address to the Elders has been employed + by you in behalf of slavery, allow me to try its virtue against slavery: + and, if it should turn out that you are slain with your own weapon, it + will not be the first time that temerity has met with such a fate. I + admit, that the Apostle does not tell the Elders of any wrong thing + which they had done; but there are some wrong things from which + he had himself abstained, and some right things which he had himself + done, of which he does tell them. He tells them, for instance, + that he had not been guilty of coveting what was another's, and also, + that with his own hands he had ministered to his own necessities + and those of others: and he further tells them, that they ought to + copy his example, and labor, as he had done, "to support the weak." + Think you, sir, from this language that Paul was a slaveholder—and, + that his example was such, as to keep lazy, luxurious slaveholders + in countenance? The slaveholder is guilty of coveting, not + only all a man has, but even the man himself. The slaveholder will + not only not labor with his hands to supply the wants of others, and + "to support the weak;" but he makes others labor to supply his + wants:—yes, makes them labor unpaid—night and day—in storm, as + well as in sunshine—under the lash—bleeding—groaning—dying—and + all this, not to minister to his actual needs, but to his luxuriousness + and sensuality. + + </p> + <p> + You ridicule the idea of the abolition of slavery, because it would + make the slaveholder "so poor, as to oblige him to take hold of the + maul and wedge himself—he must catch, curry, and saddle his own + + horse—he must black his own brogans (for he will not be able to buy + boots)—his wife must go herself to the wash-tub—take hold of the + scrubbing broom, wash the pots, and cook all that she and her rail-mauler + will eat." If Paul were, as you judge he was, opposed to the + abolition of slavery, it is at least certain, from what he says of the + character of his life in his address to the Elders, that his opposition + did not spring from such considerations as array you against it. In + his estimation, manual labor was honorable. In a slaveholding community, + it is degrading. It is so in your own judgment, or you + would not hold up to ridicule those humble employments, which + reflect disgrace, only where the moral atmosphere is tainted by slavery. + That the pernicious influences of slavery in this respect are + felt more or less, in every part of this guilty nation, is but too true. + I put it to your candor, sir, whether the obvious fact, that slavery + makes the honest labor of the hands disreputable, is not a weighty + argument against the supposition that God approves it? I put it to + your candor, sir, whether the fact, which you, at least, cannot gain-say, + that slavery makes even ministers of the gospel despise the + employments of seven-eighths of the human family, and, consequently, + the humble classes, who labor in them—I put it to your candor, + whether the institution, which breeds such contempt of your fellow-men + and fellow Christians, must not be offensive to Him, who commands + us to "Honor all men, and love the brotherhood?" + + </p> + <p> + In another argument, you attempt to show, that Paul's letter to + Philemon justifies slaveholding, and also the apprehension and return + of fugitive slaves. After having recited the Resolution of the Chilicothe + Presbytery—"that to apprehend a slave who is endeavoring to + escape from slavery, with a view to restore him to his master, is a + direct violation of the Divine law, and, when committed by a member + of the church, ought to subject him to censure"—you undertake + to make your readers believe, that Paul's sending Onesimus to Philemon, + is a case coming fairly within the purview of the resolution. + Let us see if it does. A man by the name of Onesimus was converted + to Christianity, under Paul's ministry at Rome. Paul learnt + that he had formerly been a servant—say a slave—of Philemon, who + was a "dearly beloved" Christian: and believing that his return to + his old master would promote the cause of Christ, and beautifully + exemplify its power, he advised him to return to him. He followed + the Apostle's advice and returned. Now, from this example, you + attempt to derive a justification for "a member of a Church" to be + engaged in forcibly apprehending and restoring fugitive slaves. I + + say forcibly—as the apprehension and return, referred to in the Resolution, + are clearly forcible. I cannot refrain, sir, from saying, + that you greatly wrong the memory of that blessed Apostle of the + Lord Jesus, in construing his writings to authorize such violence + upon the persons and rights of men. And greatly, also, do you + wrong the Resolution in question, by your endeavor to array the + Bible against it. The Resolution is right; it is noble—it denotes in + the source whence it emanated, a proper sense of the rights and dignity + of man. It is all the better for being marked with an honorable + contempt of wicked and heaven-daring laws. May I, having the + suspicion, or even the certain knowledge, that my fellow man was + once held in slavery, and is still <em>legally</em> a slave, seize + upon him and reduce him again to slavery? May I thus deal with a guiltless and + unaccused brother? Human laws may, it is true, bear me out in + this man-stealing, which is not less flagrant than that committed on + the coast of Africa:—but, says the Great Law-giver, "The word + that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day:"—and, + it is a part of this "word," that "he that stealeth a man shall surely + be put to death." In that last day, the mayors, recorders, sheriffs, + and others, who have been engaged, whether in their official or individual + capacity, in slave-catching and man-stealing, will find human + laws but a flimsy protection against the wrath of Him, who judges his + creatures by his own and not by human laws. In that "last day," + all who have had a part, and have not repented of it, in the sin of + treating man as property; all, I say, whether slaveholders or their + official or unofficial assistants, the drivers upon their plantations, or + their drivers in the free States—all, who have been guilty of throwing + God's "image" into the same class with the brutes of the field—will + find, that He is the avenger of his poorest, meanest ones—and that + the crime of transmuting His image into property, is but aggravated + by the fact and the plea that it was committed under the sanction of + human laws. + + </p> + <p> + But, to return—wherein does the letter of Paul to Philemon justify + slaveholding? What evidence does it contain, that Philemon was a + slaveholder at the time it was written? He, who had been his + slave "in time past," had, very probably, escaped before Philemon's + conversion to Christ. This "time past," may have been a + <em>long</em> "time past." The word in the original, which is translated + "in time past," does not forbid the supposition. Indeed, it is the same + word, which the Apostle uses in the thirteenth verse of the first chapter + of Galatians; and there it denotes a <em>long</em> "time past"—as much as + + from fifteen to eighteen years. Besides, Onesimus' escape and + return both favor the supposition, that it was between the two events + that Philemon's conversion took place. On the one hand, he fled to + escape from the cruelties of an unconverted master; on the other, + he was encouraged to follow the Apostle's advice, by the consideration, + that on his return to Philemon he should not have to encounter + again the unreasonableness and rage of a heathen, but that he should + meet with the justice and tenderness of a Christian—qualities, with + the existence and value of which, he had now come to an experimental + acquaintance. Again, to show that the letter in question does + not justify slaveholding—in what character was it, that Paul sent + Onesimus to Philemon? Was it in that of a slave? Far from it. + It was, in that of "a brother beloved," as is evident from his injunction + to Philemon to "receive him forever—not now as a + <i>slave</i>, but above a + <i>slave</i>—a brother beloved." + + </p> + <p> + It is worthy of remark, that Paul's message to Philemon, shows, + not only that he himself was not in favor of slaveholding, but, that he + believed the gospel had wrought such an entire change on this subject, + in the heart of Philemon, that Onesimus would find on his return + to him, the tyrant and the slaveholder sunk in the brother and the + Christian. + + </p> + <p> + Paul's course in relation to Onesimus was such, as an abolitionist + would deem it proper to adopt, under the like circumstances. If a + fugitive slave, who had become a dear child of God, were near me, + and, if I knew that his once cruel master had also become a "dearly + beloved" Christian; and if, therefore, I had reason to believe, as + Paul had, in the case of Philemon, that he would "receive him forever—not + now as a <i>slave</i>, but above a + <i>slave</i>, a brother beloved," I + would advise him to revisit his old master, provided he could do so, + without interference and violence from others. Such interference + and violence did not threaten Onesimus in his return to Philemon. + He was not in danger of being taken up, imprisoned, and sold for his + jail fees, as a returning Onesimus would be in parts of this nation. + + </p> + <p> + On the 72d page of your book, you utter sentiments, which, I trust, + all your readers will agree, are unworthy of a man, a republican, and + a Christian. You there endeavor again to make it appear, that it is + not the <i>relation</i> of master and slave, but only + the abuse of it, which is to be objected to.—You say: "Independence is + a charming idea, especially to Americans: but what gives it the charm? Is it + the thing in itself? or is it because it is a release from the control of a + bad master? Had Great Britain been a kind master, our ancestors were + + willing to remain her slaves." In reply to this I would say, that it + must be a base spirit which does not prize "independence" for its + own sake, whatever privation and suffering may attend it; and + much more base must be that spirit, which can exchange that "independence" + for a state of slavish subjection—even though that state + abound in all sensual gratifications. To talk of "a kind master" is + to talk of a blessing for a dog, but not for a man, who is made to + "call no man master." Were the people of this nation like yourself, + they would soon exchange their blood-bought liberties for subjection + to any despot who would promise them enough to eat, drink, + and wear. But, I trust, that we at the North are "made of sterner + stuff." They, who make slaves of others, can more easily become + slaves themselves: for, in their aggressions upon others, they have + despised and trampled under foot those great, eternal principles of + right, which <em>not only</em> constitute the bulwark of the general + freedom; but his respect for which is indispensable to every man's valuation + and protection of his individual liberties. This train of thought associates + with itself in my mind, the following passage in an admirable + speech delivered by the celebrated William Pinckney, in the Maryland + House of Delegates in 1789. Such a speech, made at the present + time in a slave State, would probably cost the life of him who + should make it; nor could it be delivered in a free States at any less + sacrifice, certainly, than that of the reputation of the orator. What a + retrograde movement has liberty made in this country in the last + fifty years! + + </p> + <p> + "Whilst a majority of your citizens are accustomed to rule with + the authority of despots, within particular limits—while your youths + are reared in the habit of thinking that the great rights of human + nature are not so sacred, but they may with innocence be trampled + on, can it be expected, that the public mind should glow with that + generous ardor in the cause of freedom, which can alone save a + government, like ours, from the lurking demon of usurpation? Do + you not dread the contamination of principle? Have you no alarms + for the continuance of that spirit, which once conducted us to victory + and independence, when the talons of power were unclasped for our + destruction? Have you no apprehension left, that when the votaries + of freedom sacrifice also at the gloomy altars of slavery, they will, at + length, become apostates from them for ever? For my own part, I + have no hope, that the stream of general liberty will flow for ever, + unpolluted, through the foul mire of partial bondage, or that they, who + + have been habituated to lord it over others, will not be base enough, + in time, to let others lord it over them. If they resist, it will be the + struggle of <em>pride</em> and <em>selfishness</em>, not of + <em>principle</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Had Edmund Burke known slaveholders as well as Mr. Pinckney + knew them, he would not have pronounced his celebrated eulogium + on their love of liberty;—he would not have ascribed to them any + love of liberty, but the spurious kind which the other orator, impliedly, + ascribes to them—that which "pride and selfishness" beget and foster. + Genuine love of liberty, as Mr. Pinckney clearly saw, springs + from "principle," and is found no where but in the hearts of those + who respect the liberties and the rights of others. + + </p> + <p> + I had reason, in a former part of this communication, to charge + some of the sentiments of Professor Hodge with being alike reproachful + to the memory of our fathers, and pernicious to the cause of civil + liberty. There are sentiments on the 72d page of your book, obnoxious + to the like charge. If political "independence"—if a free + government—be the poor thing—the illusive image of an American + brain—which you sneeringly represent it, we owe little thanks to + those who purchased it for us, even though they purchased it with + their blood; and little pains need we take in that case to preserve it. + When will the people of the Northern States see, that the doctrines + now put forth so industriously to maintain slavery, are rapidly undermining + liberty? + + </p> + <p> + On the 43d page of your book you also evince your low estimate + of man's rights and dues. You there say, "the fact that the planters + of Mississippi and Louisiana, even while they have to pay from + twenty to twenty-five dollars per barrel for pork the present season, + afford to their slaves from three to four and a half pounds per week, + does not show, that they are neglectful in rendering to their slaves + that which is just and equal." If men had only an animal, and not a + spiritual and immortal nature also, it might do for you to represent + them as well provided for, if but pork enough were flung to them. + How preposterous to tell us, that God approves a system which + brings a man, as slavery seems to have brought you, to regard his + fellow man as a mere animal! + + </p> + <p> + I am happy to find that you are not all wrong. You are no + "gradualist." You are not inconsistent, like those who admit that + slavery is sinful, and yet refuse to treat it as sinful. I hope our + Northern "gradualists" will profit by the following passage in your + book: "If I were convinced by that word (the Bible) that slavery is + itself a sin, I trust that, let it cost what it would, I should be an + abolitionist, + + because there is no truth, more clear to my mind, than that + the gospel requires an <em>immediate</em> abandonment of sin." + + </p> + <p> + You have no doubt of your right to hold your fellow men, as + slaves. I wish you had given your readers more fully your views of + the origin of this right. I judge from what you say, that you trace + it back to the curse pronounced by Noah upon Canaan. But was + that curse to know no end? Were Canaan's posterity to endure the + entailment of its disabilities and woes, until the end of time? Was + Divine mercy never to stay the desolating waves of this curse? Was + their harsh and angry roar to reach, even into the gospel dispensation, + and to mingle discordantly with the songs of "peace on earth + and good will to men?" Was the captivity of Canaan's race to be + even stronger than He, who came "to bind up the broken-hearted, + and proclaim liberty to the captives?" But who were Canaan and + his descendants? You speak of them, and with singular unfairness, + I think, as "<em>the</em> posterity of Ham, from whom, it is supposed, + sprang the Africans." They were, it is true, a part of Ham's posterity; but + to call them "<em>the</em> posterity of Ham," is to speak as though he + had no other child than Canaan. The fifteenth to nineteenth verses of the + tenth chapter of Genesis teach us, beyond all question, that Canaan's + descendants inhabited the land of Canaan and adjacent territory, + and that this land is identical with the country afterwards + occupied by the Jews, and known, in modern times, by the name of + Palestine, or the Holy Land. Therefore, however true it may be, + that a portion of Ham's posterity settled in Africa, we not only have + no evidence that it was the portion cursed, but we have conclusive + evidence that it was not. + + </p> + <p> + But, was it a state of slavery to which Canaanites were doomed? + I will suppose, for a moment, that it was: and, then, how does it + appear right to enslave them? The curse in question is prophecy. + Now prophecy does not say what ought to come to pass: nor does + it say, that they who have an agency in the production of the foretold + event, will be innocent in that agency. If the prediction of an event + justifies those who are instrumental in producing it, then was Judas + innocent in betraying our Saviour. "It must needs be that offences + come, but wo to that man by whom the offence cometh." Prophecy + simply tells what will come to pass. The question, whether it was + proper to enslave Canaanites, depends for its solution not on the + curse or prophecy in question. If the measure were in conformity + with the general morality of the Bible, then it was proper. Was it in + conformity with it? It was not. The justice, equity and mercy + + which were, agreeable to the Divine command, to characterize the + dealings of the Jews with each other, are in such conformity, and + these are all violated by slavery. If those dealings were all based on + the general morality of the Bible, as they certainly were, then slavery, + which, in its moral character, is completely opposite to them, cannot + rest on that morality. If that morality did not permit the Jews to + enslave Canaanites, how came they to enslave them? You will say, + that they had special authority from God to do so, in the words, + "Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall + be of the heathen that are around about you; of them shall ye buy + bondmen and bondmaids." Well, I will admit that God did in one + instance, and that He may have done so in others, give special authority + to the Jews to do that, which, without such authority, would + have been palpably and grossly immoral. He required them to + exterminate some of the tribes of the Canaanites. He may have + required them to bring other Heathens under a form of servitude + violative of the general morality of his word.—Of course, no blame + attaches to the execution of such commands. When He specially + deputes us to kill for Him, we are as innocent in the agency, notwithstanding + the general law, "thou shalt not kill," as is the earthquake + or thunderbolt, when commissioned to destroy. Samuel was + as innocent in hewing "Agag in pieces," as is the tree that falls + upon the traveler. It may be remarked, in this connexion, that the + fact that God gave a special statute to destroy some of the tribes of + the Canaanites, argues the contrariety of the thing required to the + morality of the Bible. It argues, that this morality would not have + secured the accomplishment of what was required by the statute. + Indeed, it is probable that it was, sometimes, under the influence of + the tenderness and mercy inculcated by this morality, that the Jews + were guilty of going counter to the special statute in question, and + sparing the devoted Canaanites, as in the instance when they "spared + Agag." We might reason, similarly to show that a special statute, + if indeed there were such a one, authorizing the Jews to compel the + Heathen to serve them, argues that compulsory service is contrary to + fundamental morality. We will suppose that God did; in the special + statute referred to, clothe the Jews with power to enslave Heathens, + and now let me ask you, whether it is by this same statute to enslave, + that you justify your neighbors and yourself for enslaving your fellow + men? But this is a special statute, conferring a power on the Jews + only—a power too, not to enslave whomsoever they could; but only + a specified portion of the human family, and this portion, as we have + + seen, of a stock, other than that from which you have obtained your + slaves. If the special statutes, by which God clothed the Jews with + peculiar powers, may be construed to clothe you with similar powers, + then, inasmuch as they were authorized and required to kill Canaanites, + you may hunt up for destruction the straggling descendants of + such of the devoted ones, as escaped the sword of the Jews. Or, to + make a different interpretation of your rights, under this supposition; + since the statute in question authorized and required the Jews to kill + the heathen, within the borders of what was properly the Jews' country, + then you are also authorized and required to kill the heathens + within the limits of your country:—and these are not wanting, if the + testimony of your ecclesiastical bodies, before referred to, can be + relied on; and, if it be as they say, that the millions of the poor + colored brethren in the midst of you are made heathens by the operation + of the system, to which, with unparalleled wickedness, they are + subjected. + + </p> + <p> + If then, neither Noah's curse, nor the special statute in question, + authorize you to enslave your fellow men, there is, probably, but one + ground on which you will contend for authority to do so—and this is + the ground of the general morality of the Christian religion—of the + general principles of right and duty, in the word of God. Do you + find your authority on this ground? If you do, then, manifestly, you + have a right to enslave me, and I a right to enslave you, and every + man has a right to enslave whomsoever he can;—a right as perfect, + as is the right to do good to one another. Indeed, the enslavement + of each other would, under this construction of duty, <em>be</em> the + doing of good to one another. Think you, sir, that the universal exercise of + this right would promote the fulfilment of the "new commandment + that ye love one another?" Think you, it would be the harbinger of + millenial peace and blessedness? Or, think you not, rather, that it + would fully and frightfully realize the prophet's declaration: "They + all lie in wait for blood: they hunt every man his neighbor with a net." + + </p> + <p> + If any people have a right to enslave their fellow men, it must be + the Jews, if they once had it. But if they ever had it, it ceased, + when all their peculiar rights ceased. In respect to rights from the + Most High, they are now on the same footing with other races of + men. When "the vail of the temple was rent in twain from the top + to the bottom," then that distinction from the Gentile, in which the + Jew had gloried, ceased, and the partition wall between them was + prostrate for ever. The Jew, as well as the Gentile, was never more + to depart from the general morality of the Bible. He was never + + again to be under any special statutes, whose requirements should + bring him into collision with that morality: He was no more to confine + his sympathies and friendships within the narrow range of the + twelve tribes: but every son and daughter of Adam were thenceforth + entitled to claim from him the heart and hand of a brother. "Under + the glorious dispensation of the gospel," says the immortal Granville + Sharp, "we are absolutely bound to consider ourselves as citizens of + the world; every man whatever, without any partial distinction of + nation, distance, or complexion, must necessarily be esteemed our + neighbor and our brother; and we are absolutely bound, in Christian + duty, to entertain a disposition towards all mankind, as charitable and + benevolent, at least, as that which was required of the Jews under + the law towards their brethren; and, consequently, it is absolutely + unlawful for those who call themselves Christians, to exact of their + brethren (I mean their brethren of the universe) a more burthensome + service, than that to which the Jews were limited with respect to + their brethren of the house of Israel; and the slavery or involuntary + bondage of a brother Israelite was absolutely forbid." + + </p> + <p> + It occurs to me, that after all which has been said to satisfy you, + that compulsory servitude, if such there were among the Jews, cannot + properly be pleaded in justification of yours; a question may still be + floating in your mind whether, if God directed his chosen people to + enslave the Heathen, slavery should not be regarded as a good system + of servitude? Just as pertinently may you ask, whether that is + not a good system of servitude, which is found in some of our state + prisons. Punishment probably—certainly not labor—is the leading + object in the one case as well as the other: and the labor of the + bondman in the one, as well as of the convict in the other, constitutes + but a subordinate consideration. To suppose that God would, + with every consideration out of view, but that of having the best relation + of employer and laborer, make choice of slavery—to suppose + that He believes that this state of servitude operates most beneficially, + both for the master and the servant—is a high impeachment + of the Divine wisdom and goodness. But thus guilty are you, if + you are unwilling to believe, that, if He chose the severe servitude + in question, He chose it for the punishment of his enemies, or from + some consideration, other than its suitableness for the ordinary purposes + of the relation of master and servant. + + </p> + <p> + But it has been for the sake of argument only, that I have admitted + that God authorized the Jews to enslave the heathen. I now totally + deny that He did so. You will, of course, consent that if He did + + so, it was in a special statute, as was the case when He authorized them + to exterminate other heathen: and you will as readily + consent that He enacted the statutes, in both instances, with the + view of punishing his enemies. Now, in killing the Canaanites, + the Jew was constituted, not the owner of his devoted fellow man, + but simply the executioner of God's vengeance: and evidently, such + and no other was his character when he was reducing the Canaanite + to involuntary servitude—that he did so reduce him, and was commissioned + by God to do so, is the supposition we make for the sake of + argument. Had the Jews been authorized by God to shut up in dungeons for + life those of the heathen, whom they were directed to have + for bondmen and bondmaids, you would not claim, that they, any + more than sheriffs and jailers in our day, are to be considered in the + light of owners of the persons in their charge. Much less then, can + the Jews be considered as the owners of any person whom they held + in servitude: for, however severe the type of that servitude, the + liberty of its subject was not restricted, as was that of the prisoners + in question:—most certainly, the power asserted over him is not to + be compared in extent with that asserted by the Jew over the Canaanite, + whom he slew;—a case in which he was, indisputably, but + the executioner of the Divine wrath. The Canaanite, whether devoted to a + violent death or to an involuntary servitude, still remained + the property of God: and God no more gave him up to be the property + of the executioner of his wrath, than the people of the State of New + York give up the offender against public justice to be the property of + the ministers of that justice. God never suspends the accountability + of his rational creatures to himself: and his rights to them, He never + transfers to others. He could not do so consistently with his attributes, + and his indissoluble relations to man. But slavery claims, that its + subjects are the property of man. It claims to turn them into mere + chattels, and to make them as void of responsibility to God, as other + chattels. Slavery, in a word, claims to push from his throne the + Supreme Being, who declares, "all souls are mine." That it does not + succeed in getting its victim out of God's hand, and in unmanning and + <i>chattelizing</i> him—that God's hold upon him + remains unbroken, and that those upward tendencies of the soul, which + distinguish man from the brute, are not yet entirely crushed in him—is no + evidence in favor of its nature:—it simply proves, that its power is not + equal to its purposes. We see, then, that the Jews—if it be true that they + reduced their fellow men to involuntary servitude, and did so as the + Heaven-appointed ministers of God's justice,—are not to be charged with + + slaveholding for it. There may be involuntary servitude where there + is no slavery. The essential and distinguishing feature of slavery is + its reduction of man to property—to a thing. A tenant of one of our + state prisons is under a sentence of "hard labor for life." But he + is not a slave. That is, he is not the <em>thing</em> which slavery would + mark its subject. He is still a man. Offended justice has placed + him in his present circumstances, because he is a man: and, it is + because he is a <em>man</em> and not a <em>thing</em>—a responsible, + and not an irresponsible being, that he must continue in his present trials + and sufferings. + + </p> + <p> + God's commandments to the Jews, respecting servants and + strangers, show that He not only did not authorize them to set up + the claim of property in their fellow men, but that He most carefully + guarded against such exercises of power, as might lead to the + assumption of a claim so wrongful to Himself. Some of these commandments + I will bring to your notice. They show that whatever + was the form of servitude under which God allowed the Jews to hold + the heathen, it was not slavery. Indeed, if all of the Word of God + which bears on this point were cited and duly explained, it would, + perhaps, appear that He allowed no involuntary servitude whatever + amongst the Jews. I give no opinion whether he allowed it or not. + There are strong arguments which go to show, that He did not allow + it; and with these arguments the public will soon be made more + extensively acquainted. It is understood, that the next number of + the Anti-Slavery Examiner will be filled with them. + + </p> + <p> + 1st. So galling are the bonds of Southern slavery, that it could + not live a year under the operation of a law forbidding the restoration + of fugitive servants to their masters. How few of the discontented + subjects of this oppressive servitude would agree with Hamlet, + that it is better to + + </p> + <div class="lg">—"bear those ills we have,<br>Than fly to others that we know not of."<br><br></div> + <p> + What a running there would be from the slave States to the free!—from + one slave State to another!—from one plantation to another! + Now, such a law—a solemn commandment of God—many writers + on slavery are of the opinion, perhaps too confident opinion, was in + force in the Jewish nation (Deut. xxiii, 15); and yet the system of + servitude on which it bore, and which you cite as the pattern and + authority for your own, lived in spite of it. How could it? Manifestly, + because its genius was wholly unlike that of Southern slavery; + + and because its rigors and wrongs, if rigors and wrongs there were + in it, bear no comparison to those which characterize Southern + slavery; and which would impel nine-tenths of its adult subjects to + fly from their homes, did they but know that they would not be obliged + to return to them. When Southern slaveholders shall cease to scour + the land for fugitive servants, and to hunt them with guns and dogs, + and to imprison, and scourge, and kill them;—when, in a word, they + shall subject to the bearing of such a law as that referred to their + system of servitude, then we shall begin to think that they are sincere + in likening it to the systems which existed among the Jews. The + law, enacted in Virginia in 1705, authorizing any two justices of the + peace "by proclamation to <i>outlaw</i> runaways, who + might thereafter be killed and destroyed by any person whatsoever, by such + ways and means as he might think fit, without accusation or impeachment of + any crime for so doing," besides that it justifies what I have just + said about hunting fugitive servants, shows, 1st. That the American + Anti-Slavery Society is of too recent an origin to be the occasion, as + slaveholders and their apologists would have us believe, of all the + cruel laws enacted at the South. 2d. That Southern slaveholders + would be very unwilling to have their system come under the operation + of such a law as that which allowed the Jewish servant to change + his master. 3d. That they are monsters, indeed, into which men + may be turned by their possession of absolute power. + + </p> + <p> + You, perhaps, suppose, (and I frankly admit to you, that there is + some room for the supposition,) that the servants referred to in the + 15th and 16th verses of the 23d chapter of Deuteronomy, were such + as had escaped from foreign countries to the country of the Jews. + But, would this view of the matter help you? By taking it, would + you not expose yourself to be most pertinently and embarrassingly + asked, for what purpose these servants fled to a strange and most + odious people?—and would not your candid reply necessarily be, + that it was to escape from the galling chains of slavery, to a far-famed + milder type of servitude?—from Gentile oppression, to a land in which + human rights were protected by Divine laws? But, as I have previously + intimated, I have not the strongest confidence in the anti-slavery + argument, so frequently drawn from this passage of the Bible. + I am not sure that a Jewish servant is referred to: nor that on the + supposition of his being a foreigner, the servant came under any form + of servitude when entering the land of the Jews. Before leaving + the topic, however, let me remark, that the passage, under any construction + of it, makes against Southern slavery. Admit that the + + fugitive servant was a foreigner, and that he was not reduced to servitude + on coming among the Jews, let me ask you whether the law in + question, under this view of it, would be tolerated by the spirit of + Southern slavery?—and whether, before obedience would be rendered + to it, you would not need to have a different type of servitude, in the + place of slavery? You would—I know you would—for you have + been put to the trial. When, by a happy providence, a vessel was + driven, the last year, to a West India island, and the chains of the + poor slaves with which it was filled fell from around them, under + freedom's magic power, the exasperated South was ready to go to + war with Great Britain. <em>Then</em>, the law against delivering up + foreign servants to their masters was not relished by you. The given case + comes most strikingly within the supposed policy of this law. The + Gentile was to be permitted to remain in the land to which he had + fled, and where he would have advantages for becoming acquainted + with the God of the Bible. Such advantages are they enjoying who + escaped from the confessed heathenism of Southern slavery to the + island in question. They are now taught to read that "Book of life," + which before, they were forbidden to read. But again, suppose a + slave were to escape from a West India island into the Southern + States—would you, with your "domestic institutions," of which you + are so jealous, render obedience to this Divine law? No; you would + subject him <em>for ever</em> to a servitude more severe than that, from + which he had escaped. Indeed, if a <i>freeman</i> come + within a certain portion of our Southern country, and be so unhappy as to + bear a physical resemblance to the slave, he will be punished for that + resemblance, by imprisonment, and even by a reduction to slavery. + + </p> + <p> + 2d. Southern slaveholders, who, by their laws, own men as absolutely + as they own cattle, would have it believed, that Jewish masters + thus owned their fellow-men. If they did, why was there so wide a + difference between the commandment respecting the stray man, and + that respecting the stray ox or ass? The man was not, but the beasts + were, to be returned; and that too, even though their owner was the + enemy of him who met them. (Ex. 23. 4.) I repeat the question;—why + this difference? The only answer is, because God made the + brute to be the <i>property</i> of man; but He never + gave us our noble nature for such degradation. Man's title deed, in the + eighth Psalm, extends his right of property to the inanimate and brute + creation only—not to the flesh and bones and spirit of his fellow-man. + + </p> + <p> + 3d. The very different penalties annexed to the crime of stealing + a man, and to that of stealing a thing, shows the eternal and infinite + + difference which God has established between a man and property. + The stealing of a man was <em>surely</em> to be punished with death; + whilst mere property was allowed to atone for the offence of stealing + property. + + </p> + <p> + 4th. Who, if not the slave, can be said to be vexed and oppressed! + But God's command to his people was, that they should neither "vex + a stranger, nor oppress him." + + </p> + <p> + 5th. Such is the nature of American slavery, that not even its + warmest friends would claim that it could recover itself after such a + "year of jubilee" as God appointed. One such general delivery of + its victims would be for ever fatal to it. I am aware that you deny + that all the servants of the Jews shared in the blessings of the "year + of jubilee." But let me ask you, whether if one third or one half + of your servants were discharged from servitude every fiftieth year—and + still more, whether if a considerable proportion of them were + thus discharged every sixth year—the remainder would not be fearfully + discontented? Southern masters believe, that their only safety + consists in keeping down the discontent of their servants. Hence + their anxious care to withhold from them the knowledge of human + rights. Hence the abolitionist who is caught in a slave state, must + be whipped or put to death. If there were a class of servants + amongst the Jews, who could bear to see all their fellow servants go + free, whilst they themselves were retained in bondage, then that + bondage was of a kind very different from what you suppose it to + have been. Had its subjects worn the galling chains of American + slavery, they would have struggled with bloody desperation for the + deliverance which they saw accorded to others. + + </p> + <p> + I scarcely need say, that the Hebrew words rendered "bondmen" + and "bondmaids," do not, in themselves considered, and independently + of the connexion in which they are used, any more than the + Greek words <i>doulos</i> and + <i>doule</i>, denote a particular + kind of servant. If the servant was a slave, because he was called by the + Hebrew word rendered "bondman," then was Jacob a slave also:—and even + still greater absurdities could be deduced from the position. + + </p> + <p> + I promised, in a former part of this communication, to give you my + reasons for denying that you are at liberty to plead in behalf of + slavery, the example of any compulsory servitude in which Jews + may have held foreigners. My promise is now fulfilled, and I trust + that the reasons are such as not to admit of an answer. + + </p> + <p> + Driven, as you now are, from every other conceivable defence of + slaveholding it may be (though I must hope better things of you), + + that you will fly to the ground taken by the wicked multitude—that + there is authority in the laws of man for being a slaveholder. But, + not only is the sin of your holding slaves undiminished by the consideration, + that they are held under human laws; but, your claiming + to hold them under such laws, makes you guilty of an additional sin, + which, if measured by its pernicious consequences to others, is by no + means inconsiderable. The truth of these two positions is apparent + from the following considerations. + + </p> + <p> + 1st. There is no valid excuse to be found, either in man's laws or + any where else, for transgressing God's laws. Whatever may be + thought, or said to the contrary, it still remains, and for ever will + remain true, that under all circumstances, "sin is the transgression + of the (Divine) law." + + </p> + <p> + 2d. In every instance in which a commandment of God is transgressed, + under the cover and plea of a human law, purporting to permit + what that commandment forbids, there is, in proportion to the + authority and influence of the transgressor, a fresh sanction imparted + to that law; and consequently, in the same proportion the public + habit of setting up a false standard of right and wrong is promoted. + It is this habit—this habit of graduating our morality by the laws of + the land in which we live—that makes the "mischief framed by a + law" so much more pernicious than that which has no law to countenance + it, and to commend it to the conscience. Who is unaware, + that nothing tends so powerfully to keep the traffic in strong drink + from becoming universally odious, as the fact, that this body and soul + destroying business finds a sanction in human laws? Who has not + seen the man, authorized by these laws to distribute the poison + amongst his tippling neighbors, proof against all the shafts of truth, + under the self-pleasing and self-satisfying consideration, that his is + a lawful business. + + </p> + <p> + This habit of setting up man's law, instead of God's law, as the + standard of conduct, is strikingly manifested in the fact, that on the + ground, that the Federal Constitution binds the citizens of the United + States to perpetuate slavery, or at least, not to meddle with it, we + are, both at the North and the South, called on to forbear from all + efforts to abolish it. The exertions made to discover in that instrument, + authority for slavery, and authority against endeavors to abolish + it, are as great, anxious, and unwearied, as if they who made them, + thought that the fortunate discovery would settle for ever the great + question which agitates our country—would nullify all the laws of + God against slavery—and make the oppression of our colored brethren, + + as long as time shall last, justifiable and praiseworthy. But + this discovery will never be made; for the Constitution is not on the + side of the slaveholder. If it were, however, it would clothe him + with no moral right to act in opposition to the paramount law of + God. It is not at all necessary to the support of my views, in this + communication, to show that the Constitution was not designed to + favor slavery; and yet, a few words to this end may not be out of + place. + + </p> + <p> + A treaty between Great Britain and Turkey, by the terms of which + the latter should be prohibited from allowing slaves to be brought + within her dominions, after twenty years from its date, would, all will + admit, redound greatly to the credit of Great Britain. To be sure, she + would not have done as much for the cause of humanity, as if she + had succeeded in bringing the further indulgence of the sin within the + limits of a briefer period, and incomparably less than if she had succeeded + in reconciling the Sublime Porte to her glorious and emphatically + English doctrines of immediate emancipation. But still she + would deserve some praise—much more than if she had done nothing + in this respect. Now, for my present purpose, and many of our + statesmen say, for nearly all purposes, the Federal Constitution is to + be regarded as a treaty between sovereign States. But how much + more does this treaty do for the abolition of slavery, than that on + which we were, a moment since, bestowing our praise! It imposes + a prohibition similar to that in the supposed treaty between Great + Britain and Turkey, so that no slaves have been allowed to be introduced + into the United States since the year 1808. It goes further, + and makes ample provision for the abolition and prevention of slavery + in every part of the nation, save these States; so that the District of + Columbia and the national territories can be cleared forever of slavery, + whenever a majority of the parties, bound by the treaty, shall desire + it. And it goes still farther, and clothes this majority with the power + of regulating commerce between the States, and consequently, of prohibiting + their mutual traffic in "the bodies and souls of men." Had + this treaty gone but one step farther, and made an exception, as it + should have done, in behalf of slaves, in the clause making necessary + provision for the return of fugitives held to service in the States from + which they flee, none but those who think it is fairly held responsible + for the twenty years indulgence of the unholy traffic, would have + claimed any thing more from it in relation to slavery. Now, this instrument, + which contains nothing more, bearing on the subject of + slavery, than what I have referred to, and whose pages are not once + + polluted with the words "slave" and "slavery," is abundantly and + triumphantly cited, as conclusive authority in favor of slavery, and + against endeavors to abolish it. Whilst we regret, that the true-hearted + sons of freedom in the Convention which formed it, could + obtain no more concessions from the advocates of slavery, let us + honor their sacred memory, and thank God for those they did obtain. + + </p> + <p> + I have supposed it possible, that you might number yourself with + those, who defend slavery on the ground of its alleged conformity + with human laws. It occurs to me, that you may, also, take hope, + that slavery is defensible in the supposed fact, that a considerable + share of the professing Christians, in the free States, are in favor of + it. "Let God be true, but every man a liar." If all professing + Christians were for slavery, yet, if God is against it, that is reason + enough why you also should be against it. It is not true, however, + that a considerable share of our professing Christians are on the + side of slavery. Indeed, until I read Professor Hodge's article, I + had not supposed that any of them denied its sinfulness. It is true, + that a large proportion of them refuse to take a stand against it. Let + them justify to their consciences, and to their God, as they can, the + equivocal silence and still more equivocal action on this subject, by + which they have left their Southern brethren to infer, that Northern + piety sanctions slavery. It is the doctrine of expediency, so prevalent + and corrupting in the American Church, which has deceived you + into the belief, that a large share of the professing Christians in the + free States, think slavery to be sinless. This share, which you have + in your eye, is, as well as the remainder, convinced that slavery is + sinful—<em>only they think it inexpedient to say so</em>. In relation to + other sins, they are satisfied with God's way of immediate abandonment. + But, in relation to slavery, they flatter themselves that they have discovered + "a more excellent way"—that of leaving the sin untouched, + and simply hoping for its cessation, at some indefinite period in the + distant future. I say hoping, instead of praying, as prayer for an + object is found to be accompanied by corresponding efforts. But + for this vile doctrine of expediency, which gives to our ecclesiastical + bodies, whenever the subject of such a giant and popular sin as + slavery is broached in them, the complexion of a political caucus + steeped in unprincipled policy, rather than that of a company of the + Saviour's disciples, inquiring "in simplicity and godly sincerity, not + with fleshly wisdom," the way of the Lord;—but for this doctrine, + I say, you would, long ago, have heard the testimony of Northern + Christians against Southern slavery;—and not only so, but you would + + long ago have seen this Dagon fall before the power of that testimony. + I trust, however, that this testimony will not long be withheld; + and that Northern Christians will soon perceive, that, in relation to + slavery, as well as every other sin, it is the safest and wisest, as well + as the holiest course, to drop all carnal policy—to "trust in the Lord + with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding." + + </p> + <p> + Not only are Northern Christians, with very rare exceptions, convinced + of the sin of slavery; but even your slaveholders were formerly + accustomed, with nearly as great unanimity, to admit, that they + themselves thought it to be sinful. It is only recently, and since they + have found that their system must be tested by the Bible, thoroughly + and in earnest—not merely for the purpose, as formerly, of determining + without any practical consequences of the determination, what + is the moral character of slavery—but, for the purpose of settling the + point, whether the institution shall stand or fall,—it is only, I say, + since the civilized world has been fast coming to claim that it shall + be decided by the Bible, and by no lower standard, whether slavery + shall or shall not exist—that your slaveholders have found it expedient + to take the ground, that slavery is not sin. + + </p> + <p> + It probably has not occurred to you, how fairly and fully you might + have been stopped, upon the very threshold of your defence of slavery. + The only witness you have called to the stand to sustain your sinking + cause, is the Bible. But this is a witness, which slavery has itself + impeached, and of which, therefore, it is not entitled to avail itself. + It is a good rule in our civil courts, that a party is not permitted to + impeach his own witness; and it is but an inconsiderable variation of + the letter of this rule, and obviously no violation of its spirit and + policy to say, that no party is permitted to attempt to benefit his + cause by a witness whom he has himself impeached. Now, the + slaveholder palpably violates this rule, when he presumes to offer the + Bible as a witness for his cause:—for he has previously impeached + it, by declaring, in his slave system, that it is not to be believed—that + its requirements are not to be obeyed—that they are not even + to be read (though the Bible expressly directs that they shall be)—that + concubinage shall be substituted for the marriage it enjoins—and + that its other provisions for the happiness, and even the existence, of + the social relations, shall be trampled under foot. The scene, in + which a lawyer should ask the jury to believe what his witness is + saying at one moment, and to reject what he is saying at another, + would be ludicrous enough. But what more absurdity is there in it + than that which the pro-slavery party are guilty of, when they would + + have us deaf, whilst their witness is testifying in favor of marriage + and searching the Scriptures; and, all ears, whilst that same witness + is testifying, as they construe it, in favor of slavery! No—before it + will be competent for the American slaveholder to appeal to the Bible + for justification of his system, that system must be so modified, as no + longer to make open, shameless war upon the Bible. I would recommend + to slaveholders, that, rather than make so unhallowed a use of + the Bible as to attempt to bolster up their hard beset cause with it, + they should take the ground, which a very distinguished slaveholding + gentleman of the city of Washington took, in a conversation with myself + on the subject of slavery. Feeling himself uncomfortably plied + by quotations from the word of God, he said with much emphasis, + "Stop, Sir, with that, if you please—SLAVERY IS A SUBJECT, WHICH + HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLE." + + </p> + <p> + This practice of attempting to put the boldest and most flagrant + sins under the wing and sanction of the Bible, is chargeable on others + as well as on the advocates of slavery. Not to speak of other instances + of it—it is sought to justify by this blessed book the most + despotic forms of civil government, and the drinking of intoxicating + liquors. There are two evils so great, which arise from this perversion + of the word of God, that I cannot forbear to notice them. One + is, that the consciences of men are quieted, when they imagine that + they have found a justification in the Bible for the sins of which they + are guilty. The other is, that infidels are multiplied by this perversion. + A respectable gentleman, who edits a newspaper in this neighborhood, + and who, unhappily, is not established in the Christian faith, + was asked, a few months since, to attend a meeting of a Bible Society. + "I am not willing," said he, in reply, "to favor the circulation + of a volume, which many of its friends claim to be on the side of + slavery." Rely on it, Sir, that wherever your book produces the + conviction that the Bible justifies slavery, it there weakens whatever + of respect for that blessed volume previously existed. Whoever is + brought to associate slavery with the Bible, may, it is true, think better + of slavery; but he will surely think worse of the Bible. I hope, + therefore, in mercy to yourself and the world, that the success of your + undertaking will be small. + + </p> + <p> + But oftentimes the same providence has a bright, as well as a + gloomy, aspect. It is so in the case before us. The common attempt, + in our day, to intrench great sins in the authority of the Bible, + is a consoling and cheering evidence, that this volume is recognised + as the public standard of right and wrong; and that, whatever may + + be their private opinions of it who are guilty of these sins, they cannot + hope to justify themselves before the world, unless their lives are, + apparently, at least, conformed, in some good degree, to this standard. + We may add, too, that, as surely as the Bible is against slavery, every + pro-slavery writer, who like yourself appeals to it as the infallible and + only admissible standard of right and wrong, will contribute to the + overthrow of the iniquitous system. His writings may not, uniformly, + tend to this happy result. In some instances, he may strengthen + confidence in the system of slavery by producing conviction, that the + Bible sanctions it;—and then his success will be, as before remarked, + at the expense of the claims and authority of the Bible:—but these + instances of the pernicious effects of his writings will be very rare, + quite too rare we may hope, to counterbalance the more generally + useful tendency of writings on the subject of slavery, which recognise + the paramount authority of God's law. + + </p> + <p> + Having completed the examination of your book, I wish to hold up + to you, in a single view, the substance of what you have done. You + have come forth, the unblushing advocate of American slavery;—a + system which, whether we study its nature in the deliberate and horrid + enactments of its code, or in the heathenism and pollution and + sweat and tears and blood, which prove, but too well, the agreement + of its practical character with its theory—is, beyond all doubt, more + oppressive and wicked than any other, which the avaricious, sensual, + cruel heart of man ever devised. You have come forth, the unblushing + advocate of a system under which parents are daily selling their + children; brothers and sisters, their brothers and sisters; members + of the Church of Christ, their fellow-members—under which, in a + word, immortal man, made "in the image of God," is more unfeelingly + and cruelly dealt with, than the brute. I know that you intimate + that this system would work well, were it in the hands of none but + good men. But with equal propriety might you say, that the gaming-house + or the brothel would work well in such hands. You have attempted + to sustain this system by the testimony of the Bible. The + system, a part only of the crimes of which, most of the nations of + Christendom have declared to be piracy;—against which, the common + sense, the philosophy, the humanity, the conscience of the world, are + arrayed;—this system, so execrable and infamous, you have had the + presumption to attempt to vindicate by that blessed book, whose Author + "is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and (who) cannot look + upon iniquity"—and who "has magnified his word above all his + name." + + </p> + <p> + And now, Sir, let me solemnly inquire of you, whether it is right to + do what you have done?—whether it is befitting a man, a Christian, + and a minister of the gospel?—and let me, further, ask you, whether + you have any cheering testimony in your heart that it is God's work + you have been doing? That you and I may, in every future work + of our hands, have the happiness to know, that the approbation of + our employer comes from the upper, and not from the under world, + is the sincere desire of + <br><br></p> + <p>Your friend,</p> + <p>GERRIT SMITH.</p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h2><a name="E4"></a> + No. 4 + <br><br><br> + THE + <br> + ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + <br><br><br> + THE + <br> + BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY. + <br><br><br> + AN INQUIRY + <br> + INTO THE + <br> + PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS + <br> + ON THE SUBJECT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. + <br><br> + NEW-YORK: + <br> + PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, + <br> + NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. + <br><br> + 1837. + + </h2> + <p> + POSTAGE—This periodical contains five and a half sheets. Postage under 100 + miles, 8-1/2 cts over 100 miles, 14 cents. + + </p> + <p><i>Please read and circulate.</i></p> + <p> + PIERCY & REED. PRINTERS, + + </p> + <p> + 7 Theatre Alley. + + </p> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="projectID3ec2855c3002e-div-d0e5554"></a> + CONTENTS. + + </h3> + <ul> + <li><a name="d0e5558"></a><a href="#E4_def" class="ref">Definition of Slavery</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5561"></a><a href="#E4_mensteal" class="ref">Man-stealing—Examination of Ex. + xxi. 16</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5564"></a><a href="#E4_buy" class="ref">Import of "Bought with money," etc.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5567"></a><a href="#E4_RP" class="ref">Rights and privileges of servants</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5570"></a><a href="#E4_inv" class="ref">No involuntary servitude under the Mosaic system</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5573"></a><a href="#E4_pay" class="ref">Servants were paid wages</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5576"></a><a href="#E4_mast" class="ref">Masters, not owners</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5579"></a><a href="#E4_prop" class="ref">Servants distinguished from property</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5582"></a><a href="#E4_equ" class="ref">Social equality of servants with their + masters</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5585"></a><a href="#E4_Gib" class="ref">Condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the + Hebrew Commonwealth</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5588"></a><a href="#E4_Egy" class="ref">Egyptian bondage analyzed</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5591"></a><a href="#E4_OBJ" class="ref">OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5594"></a><a href="#E4_Canaan" class="ref">"Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be," etc. + Gen. ix. 25</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5597"></a><a href="#E4_Ex21_20" class="ref">"For he is his money," Examination of, Ex. xxi. 20, 21</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5600"></a><a href="#E4_bond" class="ref">"Bondmen and bondmaids" bought of the heathen. Lev. xxv. 44-46</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5603"></a><a href="#E4_forever" class="ref">"They shall be your bondmen forever." Lev. xxv. 46</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5606"></a><a href="#E4_inherit" class="ref">"Ye shall take them as an inheritance," etc. Lev. xxv. 46</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5609"></a><a href="#E4_Israelite" class="ref">The Israelite to serve as a hired servant. Lev. xxv. 39, 40</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5612"></a><a href="#E4_diffserv" class="ref">Difference between bought and hired servants</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5615"></a><a href="#E4_bgtsup" class="ref">Bought servants the most privileged class</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5618"></a><a href="#E4_sumdiffserv" class="ref">Summary of the different classes of servants</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5621"></a><a href="#E4_heathen" class="ref">Disabilities of the servants from the heathen</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5624"></a><a href="#E4_Ex21_2" class="ref">Examination of Exodus xxi. 2-6</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e5627"></a><a href="#E4_uncext" class="ref">The Canaanites not sentenced to unconditional extermination</a></li> + </ul> + </div> + <p><br><br><br> + INQUIRY, &c. + + </p> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + <p> + The spirit of slavery never takes refuge in the Bible <em>of its own + accord.</em> The horns of the altar are its last resort. It seizes them, + if at all, only in desperation—rushing from the terror of the avenger's arm. + Like other unclean spirits, it "hateth the light, neither cometh to the + light, lest its deeds should be reproved." Goaded to phrenzy in its + conflicts with conscience and common sense, denied all quarter, and + hunted from every covert, it breaks at last into the sacred enclosure, + and courses up and down the Bible, "seeking rest, and finding none." + THE LAW OF LOVE, streaming from every page, flashes around it an + omnipresent anguish and despair. It shrinks from the hated light, and + howls under the consuming touch, as demons recoiled from the Son of + God, and shrieked, "Torment us not." At last, it slinks away among + the shadows of the Mosaic system, and thinks to burrow out of sight + among its types and shadows. Vain hope! Its asylum is its sepulchre; + its city of refuge, the city of destruction. It rushes from light into the + sun; from heat, into devouring fire; and from the voice of God into + the thickest of His thunders. + + </p> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_def"></a>DEFINITION OF SLAVERY. + </h3> + <p> + If we would know whether the Bible is the charter of slavery, we + must first determine <em>just what slavery is</em>. The thing itself + must be separated from its appendages. A constituent element is one thing; + a relation another; an appendage another. Relations and appendages presuppose + <em>other</em> things, of which there are relations and appendages. To + regard them as <em>the things</em> to which they pertain, or as + constituent parts of them, leads to endless fallacies. A great variety of + conditions, relations, and tenures, indispensable to the social state, are + confounded with slavery; and thus slaveholding is deemed quite harmless, if + not virtuous. We will specify some of the things which are often + confounded with slavery. + + </p> + <p> + 1. <em>Privation of the right of suffrage</em>. Then <em>minors</em> + are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 2. <em>Ineligibility to office</em>. Then <em>females</em> are + slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 3. <em>Taxation without representation</em>. Then three-fourths of + the people of Rhode Island are slaves, and <em>all</em> in the District + of Columbia. + + </p> + <p> + 4. <em>Privation of one's oath in law</em>. Then the <em>free</em> + colored people of Ohio are slaves. So are disbelievers in a future + retribution, generally. + + </p> + <p> + 5. <em>Privation of trial by jury</em>. Then all in France and Germany are + slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 6. <em>Being required to support a particular religion</em>. Then the + people of England are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all other + disabilities, merely political.] + + </p> + <p> + 7. <em>Cruelty and oppression</em>. Wives are often cruelly treated; + hired domestics are often oppressed; but these forms of oppression are not + slavery. + + </p> + <p> + 8. <em>Apprenticeship</em>. The rights and duties of master and + apprentice are correlative and reciprocal. The <em>claim</em> of each + upon the other results from the <em>obligation</em> of each to the other. + Apprenticeship is based on the principle of equivalent for value received. + The rights of the apprentice are secured, and his interests are promoted + equally with those of the master. Indeed, while the law of apprenticeship + is <em>just</em> to the master, it is <em>benevolent</em> to the + apprentice. Its main design is rather to benefit the apprentice than the + master. It <em>promotes</em> the interests of the former, while it + guards from injury those of the latter in doing it. It secures to the + master a mere legal compensation, while it secures to the apprentice both + a legal compensation, and a virtual gratuity in addition, the apprentice + being of the two decidedly the greatest gainer. The law not only + recognizes the <em>right</em> of the apprentice to a reward for his + labor, but appoints the wages, and enforces the payment. + The master's claim covers only the <em>services</em> of the apprentice. + The apprentice's claim covers <em>equally</em> the services of the master. + The master cannot hold the apprentice as property, nor the apprentice the + master; but each holds property in the services of the other, and BOTH + EQUALLY. Is this slavery? + + </p> + <p> + 9. <em>Filial subordination and parental claims</em>. Both are nature's + dictates, and indispensable to the existence of the social state; their + <em>design</em> the promotion of mutual welfare; and the + <em>means</em>, those natural affections created by the relation of parent + and child, and blending them in one by irrepressible affinities; and thus, + while exciting each to discharge those offices incidental to the relation, + they constitute a shield for mutual protection. The parent's legal claim to + the services of his children, while minors, is a slight boon for the care and + toil of their rearing, to + + say nothing of outlays for support and education. This provision for + the good of the <em>whole</em>, is, with the greater part of mankind, + indispensable to the preservation of the family state. The child, in helping + his parents, helps himself—increases a common stock, in which he has a + share; while his most faithful services do but acknowledge a debt that + money cannot cancel. + + </p> + <p> + 10. <em>Bondage for crime, or governmental claims on criminals.</em> Must + innocence be punished because guilt suffers penalties? True, the criminal + works for the government without pay; and well he may. He + owes the government. A century's work would not pay its drafts on + him. He is a public defaulter, and will die so. Because laws make + men pay their debts, shall those be forced to pay who + <em>owe nothing?</em> Besides, the law makes no criminal, PROPERTY. It + restrains his liberty; it makes him pay something, a mere penny in the pound, + of his debt to the government; but it does not make him a + <i>chattel</i>. Test it. To own property is to own its + product. Are children born of convicts government property? Besides, can + <em>property</em> be <em>guilty</em>? Are + <i>chattels</i> punished? + + </p> + <p> + 11. <em>Restrictions upon freedom.</em> Children are restrained by + parents, wards by guardians, pupils by teachers, patients by physicians and + nurses, corporations by charters, and legislators by constitutions. Embargoes, + tariffs, quarantine, and all other laws, keep men from doing as + they please. Restraints are the web of civilized society, warp and woof. + Are they slavery? then civilized society is a mammoth slave—a government + of LAW, <em>the climax of slavery</em>, and its executive a king among + slaveholders. + + </p> + <p> + 12. <em>Involuntary or compulsory service</em>. A juryman is empannelled + <em>against his will</em>, and sit he <em>must</em>. A sheriff orders + his posse; bystanders <em>must</em> turn in. Men are + <em>compelled</em> to remove nuisances, pay fines and taxes, support + their families, and "turn to the right as the law directs," + however much <em>against their wills</em>. Are they therefore slaves? To + confound slavery with involuntary service is absurd. Slavery is a + <i>condition</i>. The slave's <em>feelings</em> + toward it, are one thing; the condition itself, the object of these feelings, + is <em>another</em> thing; his feelings cannot alter the nature of that + condition. Whether he <em>desire</em> or <em>detest</em> it, the + <i>condition</i> remains the same. The slave's + <em>willingness</em> to be a slave is no palliation of his master's + guilt in holding him. Suppose the slave verily thinks himself a chattel, and + consents that others may so regard him, does that <em>make</em> him a + chattel, or make those guiltless who <em>hold</em> him as + such? I may be sick of life, and I tell the assassin so that stabs me; is + + he any the less a murderer because I <em>consent</em> to be made a corpse? + Does my partnership in his guilt blot out his part of it? If the slave + were willing to be a slave, his <i>voluntariness</i>, so + far from <em>lessening</em> the guilt of the "owner," + <em>aggravates</em> it. If slavery has so palsied his mind + and he looks upon himself as a chattel, and consents to be one, actually + <em>to hold him as such</em>, falls in with his delusion, and confirms + the impious falsehood. <em>These very feelings and convictions of the + slave</em>, (if such were possible) increase a hundred fold the guilt of + the master in holding him as property, and call upon him in thunder, + immediately to recognize him as a MAN, and thus break the sorcery that binds + his soul, cheating it of its birth-right, and the consciousness of its worth + and destiny. + + </p> + <p> + Many of the foregoing conditions and relations are + <i>appendages</i> of slavery, and some of them inseparable + from it. But no one, nor all of them together, constitute its + <i>intrinsic unchanging element</i>. + + </p> + <p> + We proceed to state affirmatively that, + + </p> + <p> + ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY, making + free agents chattels, converting <i>persons</i> into + <i>things</i>, sinking intelligence, + accountability, immortality, into <i>merchandise</i>. A + <i>slave</i> is one held in this condition. He is a mere + tool for another's use and benefit. In law "he owns nothing, and can acquire + nothing." <em>His right to himself is abrogated.</em> He is + another's property. If he say <em>my</em> hands, <em>my</em> feet, + <em>my</em> body, <em>my</em> mind, MY<em>self</em>; they are + figures of speech. To <em>use himself</em> for his own good is a CRIME. + To keep what he <em>earns</em> is stealing. To take his body into his + own keeping is <i>insurrection</i>. In a word, the> + <i>profit</i> of his master is the END of his being, and + he, a <i>mere means</i> to that end, + a <i>mere means</i> to an end into which his interests + do not enter, of which they constitute no + portion<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN1"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN1"></a>. MAN sunk to a <em>thing</em>! the + intrinsic element, the <em>principle</em> of slavery; MEN sold, bartered, + leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, invoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, + taken on executions, and knocked off at public outcry! Their + <i>rights</i> another's conveniences, + + their interests, wares on sale, their happiness, a household + utensil; their personal inalienable ownership, a serviceable article, or + plaything, as best suits the humor of the hour; their deathless nature, + conscience, social affections, sympathies, hopes, marketable commodities! + We repeat it, <em>the reduction of persons to things</em>; not robbing a + man of privileges, but of <em>himself</em>; not loading with burdens, but + making him a <em>beast of burden</em>; not <em>restraining</em> + liberty, but subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them; not + inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating <em>personality</em>; not + exacting involuntary labor, but sinking him into an <em>implement</em> of + labor; not abridging his human comforts, but abrogating his + <i>human nature</i>; not depriving an animal of + immunities, but <em>despoiling a rational being of attributes</em>, + uncreating a MAN to make room for a <em>thing</em>! + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN1"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN1">A</a>: Whatever system sinks man from an END to a + <em>means</em>, or in other words, whatever transforms + him from an object of instrumentality into a mere instrumentality + <em>to</em> an object, just so far makes him a <em>slave</em>. Hence + West India apprenticeship retains in <em>one</em> particular the cardinal + principle of slavery. The apprentice, during three-fourths of his time, is + still forced to labor, and robbed of his earnings; just so far forth he is a + <em>mere means</em>, a <em>slave</em>. True, in all + other respects slavery is abolished in the British West Indies. Its bloodiest + features are blotted out—but the meanest and most despicable of all—forcing + the poor to work for the rich without pay three-fourths of their time, with a + legal officer to flog them if they demur at the outrage, is one of the + provisions of the "Emancipation Act!" For the glories of that luminary, + abolitionists thank God, while they mourn that it rose behind clouds, and + shines through an eclipse. + </p> + <p> + That this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave states. + Judge Stroud, in his "Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery," says, + "The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked + among sentient beings, but among <i>things</i>—is an + article of property, a chattel personal, obtains as undoubted law in all of + these states," (the slave states.) The law of South Carolina thus lays down + the principle, "Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in + law to be <i>chattels personal</i> in the hands of their + owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to + ALL INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER." Brevard's Digest, 229. + In Louisiana, "a slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he + <i>belongs</i>; the master may sell him, dispose of his + <em>person, his industry, and his labor</em>; he can do nothing, possess + nothing, nor acquire any thing, but what must belong to his master." Civil + Code of Louisiana, Art. 35. + + </p> + <p> + This is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a person and a + thing, trampled under foot—the crowning distinction of all others—their + centre and circumference—the source, the test, and the measure of + their value—the rational, immortal principle, embalmed by God in everlasting + remembrance, consecrated to universal homage in a baptism of + glory and honor, by the gift of His Son, His Spirit, His Word, His + presence, providence, and power; His protecting shield, upholding staff, + and sheltering wing; His opening heavens, and angels ministering, and + chariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, and a great voice in heaven, + proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirming the word with signs + following. + + </p> + <p> + Having stated the <em>principle</em> of American slavery, we ask, + + DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A]<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN2"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN2"></a>? To the <em>law</em> and the <em>testimony</em>. First, + the moral law, or the ten commandments. Just after + the Israelites were emancipated from their bondage in Egypt, while they + stood before Sinai to receive the law, as the trumpet waxed louder, and + the mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten commandments from + the midst of clouds and thunderings. <em>Two</em> of those commandments + deal death to slavery. Look at the eighth, "<em>Thou shall not + steal</em>," or, thou shalt not take from another what belongs to him. All + man's powers of body and mind are God's gift to <em>him</em>. That they + are <em>his own</em>, and that he has a right to them, is proved from the + fact that God has given them to <em>him alone</em>, that each of them is + a part of <em>himself</em>, and all of them together + <em>constitute</em> himself. All <em>else</em> that belongs to man is + acquired by the <em>use</em> of these powers. The <em>interest</em> + belongs to him, because the <em>principal</em> does—the product is his, + because he is the <em>producer</em>. Ownership of any thing is ownership + of its <em>use</em>. The right to use according to will, is + <em>itself</em> ownership. The eighth commandment + <em>presupposes and assumes the right of every man to his powers, and their + product.</em> Slavery robs of both. A man's right to himself is the only + right absolutely original and intrinsic—his right to whatever else that + belongs to him is merely <em>relative</em> to his right to himself—is + derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the + <i>foundation right</i>—the <em>post in the + middle</em>, to which all other rights are fastened. Slaveholders, + the world over, when talking about their RIGHT to their slaves, + always assume <em>their own right to themselves</em>. What slaveholder + ever undertook to prove his own right to himself? He knows it to be a + self-evident proposition, that <em>a man belongs to himself</em>—that + the right is intrinsic and absolute. The slaveholder, in making out his own + title to himself, makes out the title of every human being to + <em>himself</em>. As the fact of being <em>a man</em> is itself the + title, the whole human family have one common title deed. If <em>one</em> + man's title is valid, <em>all</em> are valid. If one is worthless, all + are. To deny the validity of the <em>slave's</em> title is to deny + the validity of <em>his own</em>; and yet in the act of making him a + slave, the slaveholder <em>asserts</em> the validity of his + own title, while he seizes <em>him</em> as his property who has the + <em>same</em> title. Further, in making him a slave, + + he does not merely unhumanize <em>one</em> individual, but UNIVERSAL MAN. + He destroys the foundations. He annihilates <em>all rights</em>. He + attacks not only the human race, but <em>universal being</em>, and + rushes upon JEHOVAH.—For rights are <em>rights</em>; God's are no + more—man's are no less. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN2"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN2">A</a>: The Bible + record of actions is no comment on their moral character. It vouches for + them as <em>facts</em>, not as <em>virtues</em>. It records without + rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob and his + mother—not only single acts, but <em>usages</em>, such as polygamy + and concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that + <em>silent entry</em> God's <em>endorsement</em>? + Because the Bible, in its catalogue of human actions, does not stamp on every + crime its name and number, and write against it, <em>this is a + crime</em>—does that wash out its guilt, and bleach it into a + virtue? + </p> + <p> + The eighth commandment forbids the taking of <em>any</em> part of that + which belongs to another. Slavery takes the <em>whole</em>. Does the same + Bible which forbids the taking of <em>any</em> thing belonging to him, + sanction the taking of <em>every</em> thing? Is it such a medley of + absurdities as to thunder wrath against him who robs his neighbor of a + <em>cent</em>, while it bids God speed to him who robs his neighbor of + <em>himself</em>? Slavery is the highest possible violation of the eighth + commandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to take the + <em>earner</em>, is compound, superlative, + perpetual theft. It is to be a thief by profession. It is a trade, + a life of robbery, that vaults through all the gradations of the climax at + a leap—the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that towers among other robberies, + a solitary horror, monarch of the realm. The eighth commandment + forbids the taking away, and the <em>tenth</em> adds, + "<em>Thou shalt not COVET any thing that is thy neighbor's</em>;" thus + guarding every man's right to himself and his property, by making not only + the actual taking away a sin, but even that state of mind which would + <em>tempt</em> to it. Who ever made human beings slaves, or held them as + slaves without <i>coveting</i> them? Why do they take from + them their time, their labor, their liberty, their right of self-preservation + and improvement, their right to acquire property, to worship according to + conscience, to search the Scriptures, to live with their families, and their + right to their own bodies? Why do they <em>take</em> them, if they do not + <em>desire</em> them? They COVET them for purposes of gain, convenience, + lust of dominion, of sensual gratification, of pride and ostentation. + <em>They break the tenth commandment</em>, and pluck down upon their heads + the plagues that are written in the book. <em>Ten</em> commandments + constitute the brief compend of human duty. <em>Two</em> + of these brand slavery as sin. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_mensteal"></a></h3> + <p> + The giving of the law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promulgation + of that body of laws and institutions, called the "Mosaic system." + Over the gateway of that system, fearful words were written by the + finger of God—"HE THAT STEALETH A MAN AND SELLETH HIM, OR IF + HE BE FOUND IN HIS HAND, HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH." See + Exodus, xxi. 16. + + </p> + <p> + The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought + for their deliverance, proclaim the reason for <em>such</em> a law at + <em>such</em> a time—when + the body politic became a theocracy, and reverently waited for + + the will of God. They had just been emancipated. The tragedies of + their house of bondage were the realities of yesterday, and peopled their + memories with thronging horrors. They had just witnessed God's testimony + against oppression in the plagues of Egypt—the burning blains + on man and beast—the dust quickened into loathsome life, and cleaving + in swarms to every living thing—the streets, the palaces, the temples, + and every house heaped up with the carcasses of things abhorred—even + the kneading troughs and ovens, the secret chambers and the couches, + reeking and dissolving with the putrid death—the pestilence walking in + darkness at noonday, the devouring locusts and hail mingled with fire, + the first-born death-struck, and the waters blood, and, last of all, that + dread high hand and stretched out arm, that whelmed the monarch and + his hosts, and strewed their corpses in the sea. All this their eyes had + looked upon,—earth's proudest city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying + in desolation, and the doom of oppressors traced on her ruins in the + hand writing of God, glaring in letters of fire mingled with blood—a + blackened monument of wrath to the uttermost against the stealers of + men. + + </p> + <p> + No wonder that God, in a code of laws prepared for such a people at + such a time, should light up on its threshold a blazing beacon to flash + terror on slaveholders. "<em>He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if + he be found in his hand, he shall be surely put to death</em>." + Ex. xxii. 16. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance to the + Mosaic system! See also Deut. xxiv. 7<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN3"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN3"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN3"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN3">A</a>: Jarchi, + the most eminent of the Jewish writers, (if we except perhaps the Egyptian + Maimonides,) who wrote seven hundred years ago, in his comment on this + stealing and making merchandize of men, gives the meaning thus:—"Using a + man against his will, as a servant lawfully purchased; yea though he should + use his services ever so little, only to the value of a farthing, or use but + his arm to lean on to support him, <em>if he be forced so to act as a + servant</em>, the person compelling him but once to do so shall die as a + thief, whether he has sold him or not." + </p> + <p> + The Hebrew word, <i>Gaunab</i>, here + rendered <i>stealeth</i>, means the taking + from another what <em>belongs</em> to him, whether it be by violence + or fraud; the same word is used in the eighth commandment, and prohibits both + <i>robbery</i> and theft. + + </p> + <p> + The crime specified is that of <em>depriving</em> SOMEBODY + <em>of the ownership of a man</em>. Is this somebody a master? and is the + crime that of depriving a <em>master</em> of his <em>servant</em>? + Then it would have been "he that stealeth" a <em>servant, not</em> "he + that stealeth a <em>man</em>." If the crime had been the taking of an + individual from <em>another</em>, then the <em>term</em> used would + have been <em>expressive of that relation</em>, and + <em>most especially</em> if it was the relation of property and + <i>proprietor</i>! + + </p> + <p> + The crime, as stated in the passage, is three-fold—man <em>stealing</em>, + <em>selling</em> and <em>holding</em>. All are put on a level, and + whelmed under one penalty—DEATH. This <em>somebody</em> deprived of the + ownership of man, is the <em>man himself</em>, robbed of personal + ownership. Joseph said to the servants of Pharoah, "Indeed I was + <em>stolen</em> away out of the land of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. How + <em>stolen</em>? His brethren took him and sold him as an <em>article + of merchandize</em>. Contrast this penalty for <em>man</em>-stealing + with that for <em>property</em>-stealing. Exod. xxii. If a man stole an + <em>ox</em> and killed or sold it, he was to restore five oxen; if he + had neither sold nor killed it, the penalty was two oxen. The selling or the + killing being virtually a deliberate repetition of the crime, the penalty was + more than doubled. + + </p> + <p> + But in the case of stealing a <em>man</em>, the first act drew down the + utmost power of punishment; however often repeated, or however aggravated the + crime, human penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty for + <em>man</em>-stealing was death, and the penalty for + <em>property</em>-stealing, the mere <em>restoration of double</em>, + shows that the two cases were adjudicated on totally different principles. + The man stolen might be past labor, and his support a <em>burden</em>, + yet death was the penalty, though not a cent's worth of + <i>property value</i> was taken. The penalty for stealing + <em>property</em> was a mere <em>property penalty</em>. However + large the amount stolen, the payment of <em>double</em> wiped out the + score. It might have a greater <em>money</em> value than a + <em>thousand</em> men, yet <em>death</em> was never the penalty, nor + maiming, nor branding, nor even <em>stripes</em>. Whatever the kind, or + the amount stolen, the unvarying penalty was double of <em>the same + kind</em>. Why was not the rule uniform? When a <em>man</em> was stolen + why not require the thief to restore <em>double of the same kind—two + men</em>, or if he had sold him, <em>five</em> men? Do you say that + the man-thief might not <em>have</em> them? So the <em>ox</em>-thief + might not have two <em>oxen</em>, or if he had killed it, + <em>five</em>. But if God permitted men to hold <em>men</em> as + property, equally with <em>oxen</em>, the <em>man</em>-thief could + get <em>men</em> with whom to pay the penalty, as well as + the <em>ox</em>-thief, <em>oxen</em>. + + </p> + <p> + Further, when <em>property</em> was stolen, the whole of the legal penalty + was a compensation to the person injured. But when a <em>man</em> was + stolen, no property compensation was offered. To tender <em>money</em> as + an equivalent, would have been to repeat the outrage with the intolerable + aggravations of supreme insult and impiety. Compute the value of a MAN in + <em>money!</em> Throw dust into the scale against immortality! The law + recoiled from such outrage and blasphemy. To have permitted the man-thief to + expiate his crime by restoring double, would have + + been making the repetition of crime its atonement. But the infliction + of death for <i>man-stealing</i> exacted from the guilty + wretch the utmost possibility of reparation. It wrung from him, as he gave up + the ghost, a testimony in blood, and death groans, to the infinite dignity and + worth of man,—a proclamation to the universe, voiced in mortal agony, + that MAN IS INVIOLABLE,—a confession shrieked in phrenzy at the + grave's mouth—"I die accursed, and God is just." + + </p> + <p> + If God permitted man to hold <em>man</em> as property, why did He punish + for stealing <em>that</em> kind of property infinitely more than for + stealing any <em>other</em> kind of property? Why did he punish with + <em>death</em> for stealing a very little, perhaps not a sixpence worth, + of <em>that</em> sort of property, and make a mere <em>fine</em>, the + penalty for stealing a thousand times as much, of any other sort of + property—especially if God did by his own act annihilate the difference + between man and <em>property</em>, by putting him <em>on a level with + it</em>? + + </p> + <p> + The atrociousness of a crime, depends greatly upon the nature, character, + and condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the + thief, or whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a <em>full</em> man, + is theft; to steal it from a <em>starving</em> man, is both theft and + murder. If I steal my neighbor's <em>property</em>, the crime consists + not in the <i>nature</i> of the article, but in + <em>shifting its external relation</em> from <em>him to me</em>. But + when I take my neighbor <em>himself</em>, and first make him + <i>property</i>, and then <em>my</em> + property, the latter act, which was the sole crime in the former case, + dwindles to a mere appendage. The sin in stealing a man does not + consist in transferring, from its owner to another, that which is + <em>already property</em>, but in turning + <i>personality</i> into + <i>property</i>. True, the + <i>attributes</i> of man still remain, but the rights and + immunities which grow out of them are <em>annihilated</em>. It is the + first law of reason and revelation to regard things and beings as they are; + and the sum of religion, to feel and act toward them according to their + nature and value. Knowingly to treat them otherwise, is + <i>sin</i>; and the degree of violence done to their + nature, relations, and value, measures its guilt. When things are sundered + which God has indissolubly joined, or confounded in one, which + he has separated by infinite extremes; when sacred and eternal distinctions, + which he has garnished with glory, are derided and set at nought, + then, if ever, <i>sin</i> reddens in its "scarlet dye." + The sin specified in the passage, is that of doing violence to the + <i>nature</i> of a <em>man</em>—his + <i>intrinsic value</i> and relations as a rational being, + and blotting out the exalted distinction stamped upon him by his Maker. In the + verse preceding, and in that which follows, the same principle is laid down. + Verse 15, + + "<em>He then smiteth his father or his mother shall surely be put to + death.</em>" Verse 17, "<em>He that curseth his father or his mother, + shall surely be put to death.</em>" If a Jew smote his neighbor, the law + merely smote him in return. But if that same blow were given to a + <em>parent</em>, the law struck the smiter <em>dead</em>. Why this + difference in the punishment of the same act, inflicted on different persons? + Answer—God guards the parental relation with peculiar care. It is the + <em>centre</em> of human relations. To violate that, is to violate + <em>all</em>. Whoever trampled on <em>that</em>, showed that + no relation had any sacredness in his eyes—that he was unfit to move + among human relations who had violated one so sacred and tender.—Therefore, + the Mosaic law uplifted his bleeding corpse, and brandished the ghastly terror + around the parental relation to guard it from impious inroads. + + </p> + <p> + But why the difference in the penalty since the <em>act</em> was the same? + The sin had divers aggravations. + + </p> + <p> + 1. The relation violated was obvious—the distinction between parents and + others, manifest, dictated by natural affection—a law of the constitution. + + </p> + <p> + 2. The act was violence to nature—a suicide on constitutional + susceptibilities. + + </p> + <p> + 3. The parental relation then, as now, was the centre of the social + system, and required powerful safe-guards. "<em>Honor thy father and + thy mother</em>," stands at the head of those commands which prescribe the + duties of man to man; and, throughout the Bible, the parental relation + is God's favorite illustration, of his own relations to the whole family of + man. In this case, death is inflicted not at all for the act of + <em>smiting</em>, nor for smiting a <em>man</em>, but a + <em>parent</em>—for violating a vital and sacred relation—a + <em>distinction</em> cherished by God, and around which, both in the + moral and ceremonial law, He threw up a bulwark of defence. In the + next verse, "He that stealeth a man," &c., the SAME PRINCIPLE is + wrought out in still stronger relief. The crime here punished with + death, is not the mere act of taking property from its owner, but the + disregarding of <i>fundamental relations</i>, doing + violence to an <i>immortal nature</i>, making war on a + <i>sacred distinction</i> of priceless worth. That + distinction which is cast headlong by the principle of American slavery; + which makes MEN "<i>chattels</i>." + + </p> + <p> + The incessant pains-taking throughout the old Testament, in the separation + of human beings from brutes and things, shows God's regard + for the sacredness of his own distinction. + + </p> + <p> + "In the beginning" the Lord uttered it in heaven, and proclaimed it + to the universe as it rose into being. He arrayed creation at the instant + of its birth, to do it reverent homage. It paused in adoration while + He ushered forth its crowning work. Why that dread pause, and that + creating arm held back in mid career, and that high conference in the + godhead? "<em>Let us make man in</em> OUR IMAGE, <em>after</em> OUR + LIKENESS, AND LET HIM HAVE DOMINION <em>over the fish of the sea, and over + the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over + every living thing that moveth upon the earth</em>." + + </p> + <p><em>Then</em> while every living thing, with land, and sea, and + firmament, and marshalled worlds, waited to catch and swell the shout of + morning stars—THEN "GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE. IN THE IMAGE OF GOD + CREATED HE HIM." This solves the problem, IN THE IMAGE OF + GOD CREATED HE HIM. Well might the sons of God cry all + together, "Amen, alleluia"—"<em>Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive + blessing and honor"—"For thou hast made him a little lower than the + angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him + to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things + under his feet. O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the + earth</em>." Psalms viii. 5, 6, 9. The frequent and solemn repetition of + this distinction by God proclaims his infinite regard. The 26th, 27th, and + 28th verses of the 1st chapter of Genesis are little else than the repetition + of it in various forms. In the 5th chapter, 1st verse, we find + it again—"In the day that God created man, IN THE LIKENESS of GOD + MADE HE MAN." In the 9th chapter, 6th verse, we find it again. After + giving license to shed the blood of "every moving thing that liveth," it + is added, "<em>Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, + for</em> IN THE IMAGE OF GOD MADE HE MAN." As though he had said, "All + these other creatures are your property, designed for your use—they + have the likeness of earth, they perish with the using, and their spirits + go downward; but this other being, MAN, has my own <em>likeness</em>; IN + THE IMAGE OF GOD made I man; an intelligent, moral, immortal agent, invited + to all that I can give and he can be." So in Levit. xxiv. 17, 18, + "<em>He that killeth any</em> MAN <em>shall surely be put to death; and + he, that killeth a beast shall make it good, beast for beast; and he that + killeth a</em> MAN <em>shall be put to death</em>." So in the passage + quoted above, Ps. viii. 5, 6. What an enumeration of particulars, each + separating infinitely, MEN from brutes and things! + + </p> + <p> + 1. "<em>Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels</em>." Slavery + drags him down among <em>brutes</em>. + + </p> + <p> + 2. "<em>And hast crowned him with glory and honor</em>." Slavery tears + off his crown, and puts on a <em>yoke</em>. + + </p> + <p> + 3. "<em>Thou madest him to have dominion</em> OVER <em>the works of thy + hands</em>." Slavery breaks his sceptre, and casts him down + <em>among</em> those works—yea, <em>beneath them</em>. + + </p> + <p> + 4. "<em>Thou hast put all things under his feet</em>." Slavery puts HIM + <em>under the feet of an owner</em>, with beasts and creeping things. Who, + but an impious scorner, dare thus strive with his Maker, and mutilate HIS + IMAGE, and blaspheme the Holy One, who saith to those that grind his + poor, "<em>Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did + it unto me</em>." + + </p> + <p> + But time would fail us to detail the instances in which this distinction + is most impressively marked in the Bible. + + </p> + <p> + In further prosecuting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems + will be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, + and as many regulations of the latter are mere + <i>legal</i> forms of Divine institutions previously + existing. As a <i>system</i>, however, the latter alone + is of Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the + <i>patriarchs</i>, God has not made them our + examplars<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN4"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN4"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN4"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN4">A</a>: Those who insist that the patriarchs + held slaves, and sit with such delight under their shadow, hymning the + praises of "those good old patriarchs and slaveholders," might at small + cost greatly augment their numbers. A single stanza celebrating patriarchal + <i>concubinage</i>, winding off with a chorus in honor + of patriarchal <em>drunkenness</em>, would be a trumpet call, summoning + from bush and brake, highway and hedge, and sheltering fence, a brotherhood + of kindred affinities, each claiming Abraham or Noah as his patron saint, and + shouting, "My name is legion." What a myriad choir, and thunderous + song! + </p> + <p> + Before entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under + these two states of society, let us settle the import of certain terms + which describe the mode of procuring them. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_buy"></a>IMPORT OF THE WORD "BUY," AND THE PHRASE "BOUGHT WITH MONEY." + </h3> + <p> + From the direction to the Israelites to "buy" their servants, + and from the phrase "bought with money," applied to Abraham's servants, + it is argued that they were articles of <i>property</i>. + The sole ground for this belief is the <i>terms</i> "buy" + and "bought with money," and such an import to these terms when applied to + servants is assumed, not only in the absence of all proof, but in the face of + evidence to the contrary. How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing + to be proved was always <em>assumed</em>. To <em>beg</em> the question + in debate, what economy of midnight + + oil! what a forestaller of premature wrinkles, and grey hairs! Instead + of protracted investigation into Scripture usage, and painful collating + of passages, and cautiously tracing minute relations, to find the + meaning of Scripture terms, let every man boldly resolve to interpret + the language of the oldest book in the world, by the usages of his own + time and place, and the work is done. And then what a march of + mind! Instead of <em>one</em> revelation, they might be multiplied as + the drops of the morning! Every man might take orders as an inspired + interpreter, with an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, if he only + understood the dialect of his own neighborhood! We repeat it, the only + ground of proof that these terms are to be interpreted to mean, when + applied to servants in the Bible, the same that they mean when applied + to our <em>slaves, is the terms themselves.</em></p> + <p> + What a Babel-jargon it would make of the Bible to take it for granted + that the sense in which words are <em>now</em> used is the + <em>inspired</em> sense. + + </p> + <p> + David says, "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried." + What a miracle-worker, to stop the earth in its revolution! Rather too + fast. Two hundred years ago, <i>prevent</i> was used in + the strict Latin sense to <em>come before</em>, or + <i>anticipate</i>. It is always used in this sense in the + Old and New Testaments. David's expression, in the English of the nineteenth + century, is, "Before the dawning of the morning I cried," or, I + began to cry before day-break. "So my prayer shall + <i>prevent</i> thee." + "Let us <i>prevent</i> his face with thanksgiving." "Mine + eyes <i>prevent</i> the night watches." "We shall not + <i>prevent</i> them that are asleep," &c. + In almost every chapter of the Bible, words are used in a sense now + nearly or quite obsolete, and sometimes in a sense totally + <em>opposite</em> to their present meaning. A few examples follow: + "Oftentimes I purposed to come to you, but was <i>let</i> + (hindered) hitherto." "And the four <i>beasts</i> (living + ones) fell down and worshipped God,"—Whosoever shall + <i>offend</i> (cause to sin) one of these little + ones,"—Go out into the high ways and <i>compel</i> + (urge) them to come in,"—Only let your + <i>conversation</i> (habitual conduct or course of life) + be as becometh the Gospel,"—They that seek me + <i>early</i> (earnestly) shall find me,—Give me + <i>by and by</i> (now) in a charger, the head of John the + Baptist,"—So when tribulation or persecution ariseth + <i>by-and-by</i> (immediately) they are offended. Nothing + is more mutable than language. Words, like bodies, are continually throwing + off particles and absorbing others. So long as they are mere + <i>representatives,</i> elected by the whims of universal + suffrage, their meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it up for + the next century is an employment sufficiently silly, (to speak within + + bounds,) for a modern Bible dictionary maker. There never was a + shallower conceit than that of establishing the sense attached to a word + centuries ago, by showing what it means <em>now</em>. Pity that + hyper-fashionable mantuamakers and milliners were not a little quicker at + taking hints from some of our Doctors of Divinity. How easily they could + save their pious customers all qualms of conscience about the weekly + shiftings of fashion, by demonstrating that the last importation of Parisian + indecency, just now flaunting here on promenade, was the identical + style of dress in which the pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the angels, + the modest Rebecca drew water for the camels of Abraham's servants. + Since such fashions are rife in Chestnut-street and Broadway <em>now</em>, + they <em>must</em> have been in Canaan and Pandanaram four thousand years + ago! + + </p> + <p> + II. 1. The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring + of servants, means procuring them as <i>chattels</i>, + seems based upon the fallacy—that whatever <em>costs</em> money + <em>is</em> money; that whatever or whoever you pay money + <em>for</em>, is an article of property, and the fact of your paying for + it <em>proves</em> that it is property. The children of Israel were + required to <em>purchase</em> their first-born out from under the + obligations of the priesthood, Numb. xviii. 15, 16; Exod. xxxiv. 20. This + custom is kept up to this day among the Jews, and the word <em>buy</em> + is still used to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their + first-born were, or are, held as property? They were <em>bought</em> as + really as were <em>servants</em>. So the Israelites were required to + <em>pay money</em> for their own souls. This is called sometimes a ransom, + sometimes an atonement. Were their <em>souls</em> therefore marketable + commodities? + + </p> + <p> + 2. Bible saints <em>bought</em> their wives. Boaz <em>bought</em> + Ruth. "So Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I + <em>purchased</em> to be my wife." Ruth iv. 10. Hosea bought his wife. + "So I <em>bought</em> her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an + homer of barley, and an half homer of barley." Hosea iii. 2. Jacob + <em>bought</em> his wives Rachel and Leah, and + not having money, paid for them in labor—seven years a piece. Gen. + xxix. 15-29. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, and + paid for her by his labor, as the servant of her father. Exod. ii. 21. + Shechem, when negotiating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, says, + "What ye shall say unto me, I will <em>give</em>. Ask me never so much + dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me." + Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David purchased Michal, Saul's daughter, and + Othniel, Achsab, the daughter of Caleb, by performing perilous services + for the benefit of their fathers-in-law. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27; Judges i. + 12, 13. That the purchase of wives, either with money or by service + + was the general practice, is plain from such passages as Exod. xxii. 17, + and 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Among the Jews of the present day this usage + exists, though it is now a mere form, there being no <em>real</em> + purchase. Yet among their marriage ceremonies, is one called "marrying by the + penny." The coincidences, not only in the methods of procuring wives + and servants, and in the terms employed in describing the transactions, + but in the prices paid for each, are worthy of notice. The highest price + of wives (virgins) and servants was the same. Compare Deut. xxii. + 28, 29, and Exod. xxii. 17, with Lev. xxvii. 2-8. The <em>medium</em> + price of wives and servants was the same. Compare Hosea iii. 2, with Exod. + xxi. 2. Hosea appears to have paid one half in money and the other + in grain. Further, the Israelitish female bought-servants were + <em>wives</em>, their husbands and their masters being the same persons. + Exod. xxi. 8, and Judges xix. 3, 27. If <em>buying</em> servants among + the Jews shows that they were property, then buying <em>wives</em> shows + that <em>they</em> were property. The words in the original used to + describe the one, describe the other. Why not contend that the wives of the + ancient fathers of the faithful were their chattels, and used as ready change + at a pinch? And thence deduce the rights of modern husbands. How far gone is + the Church from primitive purity! How slow to emulate illustrious examples! + Alas! Patriarchs and prophets are followed afar off! When will pious + husbands live up to their Bible privileges, and become partakers with + Old Testament worthies in the blessedness of a husband's rightful immunities! + Surely professors of religion now, are <em>bound</em> to buy and hold + their wives as property! Refusing so to do, is to question the morality + of those "good old" wife-trading "patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and + Jacob," with the prophets, and a host of whom the world was not + worthy. + + </p> + <p> + The use of the word buy, to describe the procuring of wives, is not + peculiar to the Hebrew. In the Syriac language, the common expression + for "the married," or "the espoused," is "the bought." Even + so late as the 16th century, the common record of <em>marriages</em> in + the old German Chronicles was "A. BOUGHT B." + + </p> + <p> + The Hebrew word translated <em>buy</em>, is, like other words, modified by + the nature of the subject to which it is applied. Eve says, "I have + <i>gotten</i> (bought) a man of the Lord." She named him + Cain, that is, <em>bought</em>. "He that heareth reproof, getteth + (buyeth) understanding", Prov. xv. 32. So in Isa. xi. 11. "The Lord shall set + his hand again to recover (to <em>buy</em>) the remnant of his people." + So Ps. lxxviii. 54. + He brought them to this mountain which his right hand had + <em>purchased</em>, + i.e. gotten. Jer. xiii. 4. "Take the girdle that thou hast got" + (bought.) Neh. v. 8. "We of our ability have + <i>redeemed</i> (bought) our brethren that were sold to + the heathen." Here "<em>bought</em>" is not applied to persons + who were made slaves, but to those taken <em>out</em> of slavery. Prov. + 8. 22. "The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way before his + works of old." Prov. xix. 8. "He that <em>getteth</em> + (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Prov. xvi. 16. "How much + better is it to <em>get</em> (buy) wisdom than gold?" Finally, to + <em>buy</em> is a <em>secondary</em> meaning of the Hebrew word + <i>Kana</i>. + + </p> + <p> + 4. Even at this day the word <em>buy</em> is used to describe the + procuring of servants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West + Indies, where slaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still "bought." + This is now the current word in West India newspapers. So a few years since + in New-York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and even now in New-Jersey + servants are "<em>bought</em>" as really as in Virginia. And the different + senses in which the same word is used in the two states, puts no man + in a quandary, whose common sense amounts to a modicum. + + </p> + <p> + So under the system of legal <i>indenture</i> in Illinois, + servants now are "<em>bought</em>."<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN5"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN5"></a> A short time since, + hundreds of foreigners who came to this country were "bought" annually. By + voluntary contract they engaged to work for their purchasers a given time to + pay for their passage. This class of persons called "redemptioners," consisted + at one time of thousands. Multitudes are <em>bought out</em> of slavery by + themselves or others, and remove into free states. Under the same roof with + the writer is a "servant bought with money." A few weeks since, she was a + slave. As soon as "bought," she was a slave no longer. Alas! for + our leading politicians if "buying" men makes them "chattels." The + Whigs say that Benton and Rives were "bought" by the administration + with the surplus revenue; and the other party, that Clay and Webster + were "bought" by the Bank. The histories of the revolution tell us + that Benedict Arnold was "bought" by British gold. Did that make + him an article of property? When a northern clergyman marries a + rich southern widow, country gossip hits off the indecency with this + current phrase, "The cotton bags <em>bought</em> him." When Robert + Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it can + <em>buy</em> him," and when John Randolph said, while the Missouri + question was pending, + + "The northern delegation is in the market; give me money enough, + and I can <em>buy</em> them," they both meant <em>just what they + said</em>. When the temperance publications tell us that candidates for + office <em>buy</em> men with whiskey; and the oracles of street tattle, + that the court, district attorney, and jury, in the late trial of Robinson + were <em>bought</em>, we have no floating visions of "chattels personal," + man auctions, or coffles. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN5"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN5">A</a>: The following + statute is now in force in the state of Illinois—"No negro, mulatto, or + Indian, shall at any time <em>purchase</em> any servant other than of + their own complexion: and if any of the persons aforesaid shall presume to + <em>purchase</em> a white servant, such servant shall immediately become + free, and shall be so held, deemed, and taken." + </p> + <p> + The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to + the meaning attached to "buy" and "bought with money." See Gen. + xlvii. 18-26. The Egyptians proposed to Joseph to become servants, + and that he should <em>buy</em> them. When the bargain was closed, Joseph + said, "Behold I have <em>bought you</em> this day," and yet it is plain + that neither of the parties dreamed that the persons <em>bought</em> were + in any sense articles of property, but merely that they became thereby + obligated to labor for the government on certain conditions, as a + <em>compensation</em> for the entire support of themselves and families + during the famine. And that the idea attached to "buy us," and "behold I have + bought you," was merely the procuring of services voluntarily offered, and + secured by contract, as a return for <em>value received</em>, and not at + all that the Egyptians were bereft of their personal ownership, and made + articles of property. And this buying of <em>services</em> (they were to + give one-fifth part of their crops to Pharaoh) is called in Scripture usage, + <i>buying the persons</i>. This case deserves special + notice, as it is the only one where the whole transaction of buying servants + is detailed—the preliminaries, the process, the mutual acquiescence, and the + permanent relation resulting therefrom. In all other instances, the + <em>mere fact</em> is stated without entering + into particulars. In this case, the whole process is laid open. + + </p> + <p> + 1. The persons "bought," <em>sold themselves</em>, and of their own + accord. + + </p> + <p> + 2. Obtaining permanently the <em>services</em> of persons, or even a + portion of them, is called "buying" those persons. The objector, at the + outset, assumes that servants were bought of <em>third</em> persons; and + thence infers that they were articles of property. This is sheer + <em>assumption</em>. Not a single instance is recorded, of a servant being + sold by any one but himself; not a case, either under the patriarchal, or the + Mosaic systems, in which a <em>master sold his servant</em>. That the + servants who were "bought" <em>sold themselves</em>, is a fair inference + from various passages of Scripture. + + </p> + <p> + In Leviticus xxv. 47, the case of the Israelite, who became the servant + of the stranger, the words are, "If he SELL HIMSELF unto the + stranger." The <em>same word</em>, and the same <em>form</em> of the + word, which, in the 47th verse, is rendered <em>sell himself</em>, is in + the 39th verse of the same + + chapter, rendered <em>be sold</em>; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is + rendered "<em>be sold</em>." Here it is the Hithpael conjugation, which is + reflexive in its force, and, like the middle voice in Greek, represents what + an individual does for himself; or in his own concerns; and should manifestly + have been rendered, ye shall <em>offer yourselves</em> for sale. For a + clue to Scripture usage on this point, see 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25—"Thou hast + <em>sold thyself</em> to work evil." "There was none like to Ahab that + <em>sold himself</em> to work wickedness."—2 Kings xvii. 17. "They used + divination and enchantments, and <em>sold themselves</em> to do + evil."—Isa. l. 1. "For your iniquities have ye <em>sold yourselves</em>." + Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have <em>sold yourselves</em> FOR NOUGHT, and ye shall + be redeemed without money." See also, Jeremiah xxxiv. 14—Romans vii. 14, and + vi. 16—John viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians, already + quoted. + + </p> + <p> + Again, if servants were <em>bought of third persons</em>, where are the + instances? In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is generally + stated that they were bought of <em>third</em> persons. Is it not a fair + inference, if servants were bought of third persons, that there would + <em>sometimes</em> have been such an intimation? + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_RP"></a> + II.-THE LEADING DESIGN OF THE MOSAIC LAWS RELATING TO MASTERS + AND SERVANTS, WITH AN ENUMERATION OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO SERVANTS. + + </h3> + <p> + The general object of those statutes, which prescribed the relations of + master and servant, was the good of both parties—but more especially + the good of the <em>servants</em>. While the interests of the master were + specially guarded from injury, those of the servants were + <em>promoted</em>. + + </p> + <p> + These laws were a merciful provision for the poorer classes, both of + the Israelites and Strangers. Not laying on burdens, but lightening + them—they were a grant of <em>privileges</em>—a bestowment of + <em>favors</em>. + + </p> + <p> + 1. <em>No servant from the Strangers, could remain a servant in the family + of an Israelite, without becoming a proselyte</em>. Compliance with + this condition was the <em>price of the privilege</em>.—Genesis xvii. + 9-14, 23, 27. + + </p> + <p> + 2. <em>Excommunication from the family was a</em> PUNISHMENT.—Genesis + xxi. 14-Luke xvi. 2-4. + + </p> + <p> + 3. <em>The fact that every Hebrew servant could</em> COMPEL <em>his + master to keep him after the six years contract had, expired</em>, shows + that the system was framed to advance the interests and gratify the wishes of + the servant <em>quite as much</em> as those of the master. If the servant + <em>demanded</em> it, the + + law <em>obliged</em> the master to retain him in his household, however + little he might need his services, or great his dislike to the individual. + Deut. xv. 12-17, and Exodus xxi. 2-6. + + </p> + <p> + 4. <em>The rights and privileges guaranteed by law to all servants.</em> + (1.) <em>They were admitted into covenant with God.</em> Deut. xxix. + 10-13. + + </p> + <p> + (2.) <em>They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals + of the household in which they resided.</em> Exodus xii. 43-44; Deut. xii. + 12, 18, and xvi. 10-16. + + </p> + <p> + (3.) <em>They were statedly instructed in morality and religion.</em> + Deut. xxxi. 10-13; Joshua viii. 33-35; 2 Chronicles xvii. 8-9. + + </p> + <p> + (4.) <em>They were released from their regular labor nearly</em> ONE HALF + OF THE WHOLE TIME. During which, the law secured to them their entire + support; and the same public and family instruction that was provided + for the other members of the Hebrew community. + + </p> + <p> + (a.) The Law secured to them the <em>whole of every seventh year</em>; + Lev. xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those servants that remained such during the + entire period between the jubilees, <em>eight whole years</em> (including + the Jubilee year) of unbroken rest. + + </p> + <p> + (b.) <em>Every seventh day</em>. This in forty-two years, (the eight + being subtracted from the fifty) would amount to just <em>six years</em>. + + </p> + <p> + (c.) <em>The three great annual festivals</em>. The <em>Passover</em>, + which commenced on the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven days, + Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which began on the sixth + day of the third month, and lasted seven days. Lev. xxiii. 15-21. And + the Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the seventh + month, and lasted eight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. xxiii. 34-39. + As all met in one place, much time would be spent on the journey. + Their cumbered caravans moved slowly. After their arrival at the + place of sacrifice, a day or two at least, would be requisite for divers + preparations, before entering upon the celebration of the festival, besides + some time at the close of it, in preparations for their return. If we + assign three weeks to each festival—including the time spent on the + journey going and returning, and the delays before and after the celebration, + together with the <em>festival week</em>; it will be a small allowance for + the cessation of their regular labor. As there were three festivals + in the year, the main body of the servants would be absent from their + stated employments at least <em>nine weeks annually</em>, which would + amount in forty-two years, subtracting the sabbaths, to six years and + eighty-four days. + + </p> + <p> + (e.) <em>The new moons</em>. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus tells + us that the Jews always kept <em>two</em> days for the new moon. See + Calmet on the Jewish Calender, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx, + 18, 19, 27. This would amount in forty-two years, to two years, two + hundred and eighty days, after the necessary subtractions. + + </p> + <p> + (f.) <em>The feast of trumpets</em>. On the first day of the seventh + month, and of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25. + + </p> + <p> + (g.) <em>The day of atonement</em>. On the tenth of the seventh month. + Lev. xxiii. 27-32. + + </p> + <p> + These two last feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days of + time not otherwise reckoned. + + </p> + <p> + Thus it appears that those persons who continued servants during the + whole period between the jubilees, were by law released from their + labor, + TWENTY-THREE YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, + and those who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In + the foregoing calculation, besides making a generous donation of all the + <em>fractions</em> to the objector, we have left out of the account, + those numerous <em>local</em> festivals to which frequent allusion is + made, as in Judges xxi. 19; 1 Sam. 9th chapter. And the various + <em>family</em> festivals, such as at the weaning of children; at + marriages; at sheep shearings; at the making of covenants, &c., to which + reference is often made, as in 1st Sam. xx. 28, 29. Neither have we included + those memorable festivals instituted at a later period of the Jewish history. + The feast of Purim, Esther, ix. 28, 29; and the feast of the Dedication, which + lasted eight days. John x. 22; 1 Mac. iv. 59. + + </p> + <p> + Finally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time, + which, if distributed, would on an average be almost ONE HALF OF THE + DAYS IN EACH YEAR. Meanwhile, they and their families were supported, + and furnished with opportunities of instruction. If this amount + of time were distributed over <em>every day</em>, the servants would have + <em>to themselves</em>, all but a <em>fraction of</em> ONE HALF OF + EACH DAY, and would labor for their masters the remaining fraction and the + other half of the day. + + </p> + <p> + THIS REGULATION IS A PART OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS + CLAIMED BY SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE GREAT PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN + SLAVERY. + + </p> + <p> + 5. <em>The servant was protected by law equally with the other members + of the community</em>. + + </p> + <p> + Proof—"<em>Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously + between every man and his neighbor, and</em> THE STRANGER THAT IS WITH + HIM." "<em>Ye shall not</em> RESPECT PERSONS <em>in judgment, but ye + shall hear + + the</em> SMALL <em>as well as the great</em>." Deut. i. 16, 17. + Also in Lev. xxiv. 22. "<em>Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the + stranger, as for one of your own country, for I am the Lord your God</em>." + So Numbers xv. 29. "<em>Ye shall have</em> ONE LAW <em>for him that + sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of + Israel, and for the</em> STRANGER <em>that sojourneth among them</em>." + Deut. xxvii. 19. "<em>Cursed be he that</em> PERVERTETH THE JUDGMENT OF + THE STRANGER, <em>the fatherless and the widow</em>." + + </p> + <p> + 6. <em>The Mosaic system enjoined upon the Israelites the greatest affection + and kindness toward their servants, foreign as well as Jewish</em>. + + </p> + <p> + Lev. xix. 34. "<em>The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto + you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself</em>." Also + Deut. x. 17, 19. "<em>For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of + lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible, which</em> REGARDETH NOT + PERSONS, <em>nor taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the + fatherless and widow, and</em> LOVETH THE STRANGER, <em>in giving him food + and raiment</em>, LOVE YE THEREFORE THE STRANGER." So Exodus xxii. 21. + "<em>Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him</em>." Exodus + xxiii. 9. "<em>Thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for ye know the heart of + a stranger</em>." Lev. xxv. 35, 36. "<em>If thy brother be waxen poor + thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a</em> STRANGER <em>or a + sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no usury of him or increase, + but fear thy God</em>." [What an absurdity to suppose that <em>this same + stranger</em> could be taken by one that <em>feared his God</em>, held + as a <em>slave</em>, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights!] + + </p> + <p> + 7. <em>Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in all civil + and religious rights</em>. See Numbers xv. 15, 16, 29. Numb. ix. 14. + Deut, i. 16, 17. Lev. xxiv. 22. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_inv"></a> + III.—DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE + THEY MADE SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS? + + </h3> + <p> + We argue that they became servants <em>of their own accord</em>, + + </p> + <p> + 1. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to + abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with + God<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN6"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN6"></a>, to be circumcised in + + token of it, to be bound to the observance of the Sabbath, of the Passover, + the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction + in all the particulars of the moral and ceremonial law. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN6"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN6">A</a>: Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven + hundred years ago, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the + head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony + on this point: + "Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be + purchased from + the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant." + + </p> + <p> + "But he that is in the <em>house</em> is entered on the eighth day, and + he that is bought with money, on the day on which the master receives him, + unless the slave be <em>unwilling</em>. For if the master + receive a grown slave, and he be <em>unwilling</em>, his master is to + bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, and by love and + kindness, for one year. After which, should he <em>refuse</em> so + long, it is forbidden to keep him, longer than a year. And the master must + send him back to the strangers from whence he came. For the God of Jacob + will not accept any other than the worship of a <em>willing</em> + heart."—Maimon, Hilcoth, Miloth, Chap. 1st, Sec. 8th. + + </p> + <p> + The ancient Jewish Doctors agree in the testimony, that the servant from the + strangers who at the close of his probationary year still refused to adopt + the religion of the Mosaic system, and was on that account cut off from the + family, and sent back to his own people, received a <em>full + compensation</em> for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. + But that <em>postponement</em> of the circumcision of the foreign servant + for a year (<em>or even at all</em> after he had entered the family of + an Israelite) of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been + <i>a mere usage</i>. We find nothing of it in the + regulations of the Mosaic system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite + strictly <em>initiatory</em>. Whether it was a rite merely + <em>national</em> or <em>spiritual</em>, or <em>both</em>, + comes not within the scope of this inquiry. Nor does it at all affect the + argument. + </p> + <p> + Were the servants <em>forced</em> through all these processes? Was the + renunciation of idolatry <em>compulsory</em>? Were they + <em>dragged</em> into covenant with God? Were they seized and circumcised + by <em>main strength</em>? Were they <em>compelled</em> mechanically + to chew, and swallow, the flesh of the Paschal lamb, while they abhorred the + institution, despised its ceremonies, spurned the law which enjoined it, + detested its author and executors, and instead of rejoicing in the + deliverance which it commemmorated, bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the + day of its consummation? + Were they <em>driven</em> from all parts of the land three times in the + year up to the annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction + which they nauseated? Were they goaded through a round of ceremonies, + to them senseless and disgusting mummeries; and drilled into + the tactics of a creed rank with loathed abominations? + + </p> + <p> + We repeat it, to become a <i>servant</i>, was to become + a <i>proselyte</i>. And + how did God authorize his people to make proselytes? At the point of + the sword? By the terror of pains and penalties? By converting men + into <em>merchandise</em>? Were <i>proselyte</i> and + <i>chattel</i> synonymes, in the Divine + vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a <em>thing</em> before taken into + covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and + the sole passport to the communion of the saints? + + </p> + <p> + 2. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, + "<em>Thou shall not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped + from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among + you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it + liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him</em>." + + </p> + <p> + As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the + <em>right</em> of the master to hold him. His <em>fleeing</em> "shows + his <em>choice</em>—proclaims his wrongs, his master's oppressive acts, + and his own claim to legal protection." You shall not force him back, and + thus recognize the <em>right</em> of the master to hold him in such a + condition as induces him to flee to others for protection." It may be + objected, that this command had no reference to servants among the + <em>Israelites</em>, but only to those of <em>heathen</em> masters + in the surrounding nations. We answer, The regulation has no restriction. + Its terms are unlimited. But the objection, even if valid, merely shifts + the pressure of the difficulty to another point. Does God array his infinite + authority to protect the <em>free choice</em> of a <em>single</em> + servant from the heathen, and yet <em>authorize</em> the same persons, + to crush the free choice of <em>thousands</em> of servants from the + heathen! Suppose a case. A <em>foreign</em> servant flees from his master + to the Israelites; God speaks, "He shall dwell with thee, in that place which + <em>he shall choose</em>, in one of thy gates where it <em>liketh</em> + him best." They were strictly charged not to put him in a condition which he + did not <em>choose</em>. Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming + into Israel of his own accord, had been <em>dragged</em> in by some + kidnapper who <em>bought</em> him of his master, and <em>forced</em> + him into a condition against his will. Would He who forbade such treatment of + the stranger, who <em>voluntarily</em> came into the land, sanction the + <em>same</em> treatment of the <em>same person</em>, provided in + <em>addition</em> to this last outrage, the <em>previous</em> one + had been committed of <em>forcing him into the nation against his + will</em>? + + </p> + <p> + To commit violence on the free choice of a <em>foreign</em> servant is + a horrible enormity, forsooth, PROVIDED you <em>begin</em> the violence + <em>after</em> he has come among you. But if you commit the <em>first + act</em>, on the <em>other side of the line</em>; if you + <em>begin</em> the outrage by buying him from a third person + <em>against his will</em>, and then tear him from home, and drag him + across the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave—ah! + that alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence now with impunity! + Would <em>greater</em> favor have been shown to this new comer from the + heathen than to the old residents—those who had been servants in Jewish + families perhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commanded to exercise + toward <em>him</em>, uncircumcised and <em>out</em> of the covenant, + a justice and kindness denied to the multitude, who <em>were</em> + circumcised, and <em>within</em> the covenant? + + </p> + <p> + Again: the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition + that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding + nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition + + against their wills—the objector finds small gain to his argument. In + that case, the surrounding nations would of course adopt retaliatory + measures, and resolve themselves into so many asylums for fugitive + Israelitish servants. As these nations were on every side of them + such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men held in a + condition which was a constant <i>counteraction of + will</i>. Further, the objector's assumption destroys itself; for the same + command which protected the foreign servant from the power of his + <i>master</i>, protected him equally from the power of + an <i>Israelite</i>. It was not merely, "Thou shalt not + deliver him to his <i>master</i>," but "he (the servant) + shall dwell with thee, in that place which <em>he shall choose</em>, in + one of thy gates where it liketh him best." Every Israelite was commanded to + respect his free choice, and to put him in no condition <em>against his + will</em>. What was this but a proclamation, that all who <em>chose</em> + to live in the land and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to + dispose of their services at such a rate, to such persons, and in such places + as they pleased? + + </p> + <p> + Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of + <em>foreign</em> servants merely, was the any law requiring the return + of servants who had escaped from the <em>Israelites</em>? There was a + statute requiring the return of <em>property</em> lost, and + <em>cattle</em> escaped, but none requiring the return of escaped + <em>servants</em>. + + </p> + <p> + Finally, these verses contain, <em>first</em>, a command, "Thou shalt not + deliver," &c. <em>Secondly</em>, a declaration of the fugitive's right + of <em>free choice</em>, and of God's will that he should exercise it at + his own discretion; and <em>thirdly</em>, a command guarding this right, + namely, "Thou shalt not oppress him," as though God had said, If you forbid + him to exercise his <em>own choice</em>, as to the place and condition of + his residence, it is <em>oppression</em>, and I will not tolerate it. + + </p> + <p> + 3. <em>We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar + opportunities and facilities for escape</em>. Three times every year, all + the males over twelve years of age, were required to attend the public + festivals. The main body were thus absent from their homes not less than three + weeks each time, making nine weeks annually. As these caravans + moved over the country, were there military scouts lining the way, to + intercept deserters?—a corporal's guard stationed at each pass of the + mountains, sentinels pacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring the + defiles? What safe contrivance had the Israelites for taking their + <em>"slaves"</em> three times in a year to Jerusalem and back? When a body + of slaves is moved any distance in our free and equal + <i>republic</i>, they are handcuffed to keep them from + running away, or beating their drivers' brains + + out. Was this the <em>Mosaic</em> plan, or an improvement left for the + wisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venerable + and biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and transported + in bundles, or caged up, and trundled on wheels to and fro, and + while at the Holy City, "lodged in jail for safe keeping," religions services + <em>extra</em> being appointed, and special "ORAL instruction" for their + benefit. But meanwhile, what became of the sturdy <em>handmaids</em> left + at home? What hindered them from marching off in a body? Perhaps + the Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while + the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, to pick up + stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets as city guards, keeping a + sharp look-out at night. + + </p> + <p> + 4. <em>Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance + of various rites and ceremonies necessarily</em> VOLUNTARY. + + </p> + <p> + Suppose a servant from the heathen should, upon entering a Jewish + family, refuse circumcision; the question whether he shall remain a servant, + is in his own hands. If a <em>slave</em>, how simple the process of + emancipation! His <em>refusal</em> did the job. Or, suppose that, at any + time, he should refuse to attend the tri-yearly feasts, or should eat leavened + bread during the Passover, or compound the ingredients of the anointing + oil, he is "cut off from the people;" + <i>excommunicated</i>. + + </p> + <p> + 5. <em>We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs from + the impossibility of their being held against their wills.</em> The servants + of Abraham are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred and + eighteen <i>young men</i> "born in his house," and + probably many more <em>not</em> born in his house. The whole number of + his servants of all ages, was probably MANY THOUSANDS. Doubtless, Abraham + was a man of a million, and Sarah too, a right notable housekeeper; still, it + is not easy to conceive how they contrived to hold so many thousand servants + against their wills, unless the patriarch and his wife <em>took turns</em> + in performing the Hibernian exploit of surrounding them! The neighboring + tribes, instead of constituting a picket guard to hem in his servants, + would have been far more likely to sweep them and him into captivity, + as they did Lot and his household. Besides, Abraham had neither + "Constitution," nor "compact," nor statutes, nor judicial officers to send + back his fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce upon panic-stricken + women, nor gentleman-kidnappers, suing for patronage, volunteering to + howl on the track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging their + "honor" to hunt down and "deliver up," <em>provided</em> they had a + description of the "flesh marks," and were stimulated in their chivalry by + <em>pieces of silver</em>. Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient + in all the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand cuffs, + foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these + patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, when we consider his + faithful discharge of responsibilities to his household, though so deplorably + destitute of the needful aids. + + </p> + <p> + 6. <em>We infer that servants were voluntary, from the fact that there is + no instance of an Israelitish master ever</em> SELLING + <i>a servant</i>. Abraham had thousands of servants, but + appears never to have sold one. Isaac "grew until he became very great," and + had "great store of servants." Jacob's youth was spent in the family of Laban, + where he lived a servant twenty-one years. Afterward he had a large number of + servants. + + </p> + <p> + When Joseph sent for Jacob to come into Egypt, the words are, + "thou and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks and + thy herds, and ALL THAT THOU HAST." Jacob took his flocks and herds + but <em>no servants</em>. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 6; xlvii. 1. His servants + doubtless, served under their <em>own contracts</em>, and when Jacob went + into Egypt, they <em>chose</em> to stay in their own country. + + </p> + <p> + The government might sell <em>thieves</em>, if they had no property, + until their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex. + xxii. 3. But <em>masters</em> seem to have had no power to sell their + <em>servants</em>—the reason is obvious. To give the master a + <em>right</em> to sell his servant, would annihilate the servant's right + of choice in his own disposal; but says the objector, To give the master a + right to <em>buy</em> a servant, equally annihilates the servant's + <em>right of choice</em>. Answer. It is one thing to have a right to buy + a man, and a very different thing to have a right to buy him of + <em>another</em> man. + + </p> + <p> + Though there is no instance of a servant being bought of his, or her + master, yet there are instances of young females being bought of their + <em>fathers</em>. But their purchase as <em>servants</em> was their + betrothal as WIVES. Exodus xxi. 7, 8. "<em>If a man sell his daughter to + be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please + not her master</em> WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, <em>he shall let + her be redeemed</em><a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN7"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN7"></a>." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN7"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN7">A</a>: The comment of Maimonides on + this passage is as follows: + + </p> + <p> + "A Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under + obligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit to be + betrothed."—<em>Maimonides—Hilcoth—Obedim</em>, + Ch. IV. Sec. XI. + + </p> + <p> + Jarchi, on the same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse her and take her + to be his wife for the <i>money of her purchase</i> is + the money of her <i>espousals</i>." + + </p> + <p> + 7. <em>We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in</em> + COMMENCING <em>his service, because he was pre-eminently so</em> IN + CONTINUING <em>it</em>. If, at the year of release, it was the servant's + <em>choice</em> to remain with his master, so did the law guard his free + will, that it required his ear to be bored by the judges of the land, thus + making it impossible for the servant to be held in an involuntary condition. + Yea, so far was his <em>free choice</em> protected, that his master was + compelled to keep him, however much he might wish to get rid of him. + + </p> + <p> + 8. <em>The method prescribed for procuring servants, recognized their + choice, and was an appeal to it</em>. The Israelites were commanded to + offer them a suitable <em>inducement</em>, and then leave them to decide. + They might neither seize by <em>force</em>, nor frighten + them by <em>threats</em>, nor wheedle them by false pretenses, nor + <em>borrow</em> them, nor <em>beg</em> them; but they were commanded + to BUY them<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN8"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN8"></a>; that is, they were to recognize + the <em>right</em> of the individuals to their own services—their + right to <em>dispose</em> of them, and their right to <em>refuse all + offers</em>. They might, if they pleased, refuse all applications, and thus + oblige those who made them, <em>to do their own work</em>. Suppose all, + with one accord, <em>refused</em> to become servants, what provision did + the Mosaic law make for such an emergency? NONE. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN8"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN8">A</a>: The case of thieves, whose services were + sold until they had earned enough to make restitution to the person wronged, + and to pay the legal penalty, <em>stands by itself</em>, and has no + relation to the condition of servants. + </p> + <p> + 9. <em>Various incidental expressions throughout the Bible, corroborate + the idea that servants became such by virtue of their own contract</em>. Job + xli. 4. is an illustration, "<em>Will he</em> (Leviathan) + <em>make a</em> COVENANT <em>with thee? wilt thou take him for a</em> + SERVANT <em>forever?</em>" + + </p> + <p> + 10. <em>The transaction which made the Egyptians the</em> SERVANTS OF + PHAROAH, <em>shows entire voluntariness throughout</em>. It is detailed + in Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of their own accord, they came to Joseph and said, + "We have not aught left but our <em>bodies</em> and our lands; + <em>buy</em> us;" then in the 25th verse, <em>"Thou hast saved our + lives: let us find grace in the sight of my Lord, and we will be servants to + Pharaoh.</em>" + + </p> + <p> + 11. <em>We argue that the condition of servants was an</em> OPTIONAL + <em>one from the fact that</em> RICH <em>strangers did not become + servants.</em> Indeed, so far were they from becoming servants themselves, + that <em>they bought and held Jewish servants.</em> Lev. xxv. 47. + + </p> + <p> + 12. <em>The sacrifices and offerings which</em> ALL <em>were required to + present, were to be made</em> VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3. + + </p> + <p> + 13. <em>Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where they + were manifestly and pre-eminently</em> VOLUNTARY. The case of the Prophet + + Elisha is one. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his + <i>master</i>. The original word, translated master, is + the same that is so rendered in almost every instance where masters are + spoken of throughout the Mosaic and patriarchal systems. It is translated + <i>master</i> eighty-five times in our English version. + Moses was the servant of Jethro. Exodus iii. 1. Joshua was the servant of + Moses. Numbers xi. 28. Jacob was the servant of Laban. Genesis xxix, 18-27. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_pay"></a> + IV. WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY? + + </h3> + <p> + Having already shown that the servants became and continued such + <em>of their own accord</em>, it would be no small marvel if they + <em>chose</em> to work without pay. Their becoming servants, + pre-supposes <em>compensation</em> as a motive. + + </p> + <p> + That they <em>were paid</em> for their labor, we argue, + + </p> + <p> + 1. <em>Because, while Israel was under the Mosaic system, God rebuked + in thunder, the sin of using the labor of others without wages. "Wo + unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers + by wrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth + him not for his work.</em>" Jer. xxii. 13. Here God testifies that to use + the service of others without wages is "unrighteousness," and He + commissions his "wo" to burn upon the doer of the "wrong." This + "wo" was a permanent safeguard of the <i>Mosaic + system</i>. The Hebrew word + <i>Rea</i>, here + translated <i>neighbor</i>, does not mean one man, or + class of men, in distinction from others, but <em>any one with whom we have + to do</em>—all descriptions of persons, not merely servants and heathen, + but even those who prosecute us in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of + fighting us—"<em>As when a man riseth against his</em> NEIGHBOR + <em>and slayeth him.</em>" Deut. xxii. 26. + "<em>Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the + end thereof, when thy</em> NEIGHBOR <em>hath put thee to shame.</em>" + Prov. xxv. 8. "<em>Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy</em> + NEIGHBOR." Exod. xx. 16. "<em>If any man come presumptuously + upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with guile</em>." Exod. xxi. 14. In these, and + in scores of similar cases, <i>Rea</i> + is the original word. + + </p> + <p> + 2. <em>We have the testimony of God, that in our duty to our fellow + men,</em> ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS <em>hang upon this command, + "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.</em>" Our Saviour, in giving this + command, quoted <i>verbatim</i> one of + the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the same + chapter, Moses commands obedience to this law in all the treatment of + strangers, "<em>The stranger that + + dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and</em> THOU + SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF." If it be loving others <em>as</em> ourselves, + to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and clothing, + as well as wages, would be a stranger illustration still of the law of + love! Super-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing to others + as we would have them do to us, to make them work for <em>our own</em> + good alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human + nature, especially for that libellous matter in Ephes. v. 29, "<em>No man + ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it</em>." + + </p> + <p> + 3. <em>As persons became servants</em> FROM POVERTY, <em>we argue that + they were compensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes + a large amount</em>. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David a + princely present, "An hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches + of raisins, and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine." 2 + Sam. xvi. 1. The extent of his possessions can be inferred from the + fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he still employed twenty + servants, of whom he was the master. + + </p> + <p> + A case is stated in Leviticus xxv. 47-55, where a servant, reduced + to poverty, sells himself; and it is declared that afterward he may be + <i>redeemed</i>, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. + As he was forced to sell himself from sheer poverty he must not only have + acquired property <em>after</em> he became a servant, but a considerable + sum. + + </p> + <p> + If it had not been common for servants to possess, and acquire property, + over which they had the exclusive control, Gehazi, the servant + of Elisha, would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, + (nearly $3000<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN9"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN9"></a>) from Naaman, + (2 Kings v. 22, 23.) As it was procured + by deceit, he was anxious to conceal the means used in getting + it; but if the Israelitish servants, like our slaves, could "own nothing, + nor acquire any thing," to embark in such an enterprise would have been + consummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talents of + silver, would of itself convict him of theft<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN10"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN10"></a>. But since the + possession and use of property by servants, was common under the Mosaic + system, + + he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting special attention. + And that consideration alone would have been a strong motive to the act. His + master, while he rebukes him for using such means to get the money, not only + does not take it from him, but seems to expect that he would invest it in real + estate, and cattle, and would procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. In + 1 Sam. ix. 8, we find the servant of Saul having money, and relieving his + master in an emergency. Arza, the servant of Elah, was the <em>owner of a + house</em>. That it was spacious and somewhat magnificent, would be a + natural inference from the fact that it was a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. + 9. The case of the Gibeonites, who, after they became servants, still + occupied their cities, and remained, in many respects, a distinct people for + centuries; and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the + <em>servants</em> of Solomon, who worked out their tribute of bond-service + in levies, periodically relieving each other, while preparing the materials + for the temple, are additional illustrations of independence in the + acquisition and ownership of property. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN9"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN9">A</a>: Though we have not sufficient data to + decide with accuracy upon the <em>relative</em> value of that sum, + <em>then</em> and <em>now</em>, yet we have enough to warrant us in + saying that two talents of silver had far more value <em>then</em> than + three thousand dollars have <em>now</em>. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN10"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN10">B</a>: Whoever + heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing a large amount of money? + They "<em>know how to take care of themselves</em>" quite too well for + that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on such a <em>small</em> + scale, or in the taking of <em>such things</em> as will make detection + difficult. No doubt they steal now and then a little, and a gaping marvel + would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow in the footsteps of + their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if, after so many lessons + from <i>proficients</i> in the art, who drive the business + by <i>wholesale</i>, they should not occasionally copy + their betters, fall into the <i>fashion</i>, and try their + hand in a small way, at a practice which is the <em>only permanent and + universal</em> business carried on around them! + Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high impulse, prompting them to + imitate the eminent pattern set before them in the daily vocation of + "Honorables" and "Excellencies," and to emulate the illustrious examples of + Doctor of Divinity and <em>Right</em> and <em>Very Reverends</em>! + Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his notes of Virginia, speaking of + slaves, he says, "That disposition to theft with which they (the slaves) have + been branded, must be ascribed to their <em>situation</em>, and not to + any special depravity of the moral sense. It is a problem which I give the + master to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of + property were not framed for HIM as well as for his slave—and whether + the slave may not as justifiably take a little from one who has taken ALL + from him, as he may <em>slay</em> one who would slay him" See Jefferson's + Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8 + </p> + <p> + 4. <i>Heirship</i>—Servants frequently inherited + their master's property; especially if he had no sons, or if they had + dishonored the family. This seems to have been a general usage. + + </p> + <p> + The cases of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Ziba, the servant of + Mephibosheth, Jarha an Egyptian, the servant of Sheshan, and the husband of + his daughter; 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35, and of the <em>husbandmen</em> who + said of their master's son, "<em>this is the</em> HEIR, let us kill him, + <em>and</em> the INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS." Mark xii. 7, are + illustrations. Also the declaration in Prov. xvii. 2—"<em>A wise + servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and</em> SHALL HAVE + PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG THE BRETHREN." This passage seems to give + <em>servants</em> precedence as heirs, even over the <em>wives</em> + and <em>daughters</em> of their masters. Did masters hold by force, and + <em>plunder of earnings</em>, a class of persons, from which, in frequent + contingencies, they selected both heirs for their property, and husbands for + their daughters? + + </p> + <p> + 5. ALL <em>were required to present offerings and sacrifices</em>. + Deut. xvi. 15, 17. 2 Chron. xv. 9-11. Numb. ix. 13. + + </p> + <p> + Servants must have had permanently, the means of <em>acquiring</em> + property to meet these expenditures. + + </p> + <p> + 6. <em>Those Hebrew servants who went out at the seventh year, were + provided by law with a large stock of provisions and cattle</em>. Deut. xv. + 11-14. "<em>Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, + and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord + thy God hath blessed thee, thou shalt give + him</em><a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN11"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN11"></a>." If it be objected, that no mention + is made of the servants from the strangers, receiving a like bountiful + supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of the + <em>Israelitish</em> servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, + <em>they did not go out in the seventh year</em>, but continued until + the jubilee. If the fact that no mention is made of the Gentile servants + receiving such a <i>gratuity</i> proves that they were + robbed of their <em>earnings</em>; it proves that the most valued class + of <em>Hebrew</em> servants were robbed of theirs also, a conclusion + too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN11"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN11">A</a>: The comment of Maimonides on this passage + is as follows—"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to + say, '<em>Loading ye shall load him.</em>' likewise every one of his + family, with as much as he can take with him in abundant benefits. And if it + be avariciously asked, How much must I give him? I say unto <em>you, not + less than thirty shekels</em>, which is the valuation of a servant, as + declared in Exodus xxi. 32"—Maimonides, Hilcoth, Obedim, Chapter ii. + Section 3. + </p> + <p> + 7. <em>The servants were</em> BOUGHT. <em>In other words, they received + compensation for their services in advance</em>. Having shown, under a + previous head, that servants <em>sold themselves</em>, and of course + received the compensation for themselves, (except in cases where parents hired + out the time of their children until they became of + age<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN12"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN12"></a>,) a mere reference to the fact in + this place is all that is required for the purposes of this argument. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN12"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN12">B</a>: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at + twelve, and boys at thirteen years. + </p> + <p> + 8. <em>We infer that servants were paid, because we find masters at one + time having a large number of servants, and afterwards none, without any + intimation that they were sold.</em> The wages of servants would enable + them to set up in business for themselves. Jacob, after being the servant + of Laban for twenty-one years, became thus an independent herdsman, and was + the master of many servants. Gen. xxx. 43, and xxxii. + 15. But all these servants had left him before he went down into + Egypt, having doubtless acquired enough to commence business for + themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11, and xlvi. 1-7, 32. + + </p> + <p> + 9. <em>God's testimony to the character of Abraham.</em> Genesis xviii. + 19. + <em>"For I know him that he will command his children and his household + after him, and they shall keep</em> THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE AND + JUDGMENT." We have here God's testimony, that Abraham taught his servants + "the way of the Lord." What was the "way of the Lord" respecting the payment + of wages where service was rendered? "<em>Wo unto him that useth his + neighbor's service without wages</em>!" Jer. xxii. 13. + "<em>Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal</em>." + Col. iv. 1. <em>"Render unto all their</em> DUES." ROM. xiii. 7. + <em>"The laborer is worthy of his hire."</em> Luke x. 7. How did Abraham + teach his servants to <em>"do justice"</em> to others? By doing + <em>injustice to them?</em> Did he exhort them to "render to all their + dues" by keeping back <em>their own</em>? Did he teach them that "the + laborer was worthy of his hire" by robbing them of <em>theirs</em>? Did + he beget in them a reverence for the eighth commandment by pilfering all + their time and labor? Did he teach them "not to defraud" others "in any + matter" by denying <em>them</em> "what was just and equal?" If each of + Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very + <i>Aristides</i> in justice, then an illustrious example, + patriarchal dignity, and <em>practical</em> lessons, can make but slow + headway against human perverseness! + + </p> + <p> + 10. <em>Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general + principles.</em> Out of many, we select the following: + + </p> + <p> + (1.) <em>"Thou shall not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn,"</em> + or literally, <em>while he thresheth.</em> Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a + general principle applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all + domestic animals. Isaiah xxx. 24. A <em>particular</em> kind of + service—<em>all</em> kinds; and a law requiring an abundant + provision for the wants of an animal ministering to man in a + <em>certain</em> way,—<em>a general principle of treatment + covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service.</em> The + object of the law was, not merely to enjoin tenderness towards brutes, but to + inculcate the duty of <em>rewarding those who serve us</em>, showing that + they who labor for others, are entitled to what is just and equal in return; + and if such care is enjoined, by God, not merely for the ample sustenance, + but for the <em>present enjoyment of a brute</em>, what would be a meet + return for the services of <em>man</em>? MAN, with his varied wants, + exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul tells us expressly, that the + principle which we have named, lies at the bottom of the statute. See + 1 Corinthians ix. 9, 10—<em>"For it is written in the law of Moses, + Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth + God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR sakes? that he that + ploweth should plow in</em> + HOPE, <em>and that he that thresheth in hope should be</em> PARTAKER OF + HIS HOPE." + + </p> + <p> + (2.) "<em>If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, + then thou shalt relieve him.</em> YEA, THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER OR a + SOJOURNER, <em>that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, + or increase, but fear thy God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon + usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.</em>" Lev. xxv. 35-37. Or, + in other words, "relief at your hands is his right, and your duty—you + shall not take advantage of his necessities, but cheerfully supply them." + Now, we ask, by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this benevolent + regulation can be made to be in <em>keeping</em> with the doctrine of + WORK WITHOUT PAY? Did God declare the poor stranger entitled to RELIEF, + and in the same breath, <em>authorize</em> them to <em>"use his + services without wages</em>;" force him to work, and ROB HIM OF ALL HIS + EARNINGS? Judge ye. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_mast"></a> + V.—WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS + THEIR LEGAL PROPERTY? + + </h3> + <p> + The discussion of this topic has been already somewhat anticipated + under the preceding heads; but a variety of considerations, not within + the range of our previous inquiries, remain to be noticed. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_prop"></a></h3> + <p> + 1. <em>Servants were not subjected to the uses, nor liable to the + contingencies of property.</em></p> + <p> + (1.) <em>They were never taken in payment for their masters' debts</em>, + though children were sometimes taken (without legal authority) for the debts + of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; Isaiah l. 1; Matt. xviii. 25. + + </p> + <p> + Cases are recorded to which creditors took from debtors property of + all kinds, to satisfy their demands. In Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; + in Prov. xxii 27, household furniture; in Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions + of the soil; in Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; in Exodus xxii. 26-29, and Deut. + xxiv. 10-13, and Matt. v. 40, clothing; but <em>servants</em> were taken + in <em>no instance</em>. + + </p> + <p> + (2.) <em>Servants were never given as pledges</em>. <em>Property</em> + of all sorts was given and held in pledge. We find in the Bible, household + furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets, and personal ornaments, with + divers other articles of property, used as pledges for value received. But no + <em>servants</em>. + + </p> + <p> + (3.) <em>All lost</em> PROPERTY <em>was to be restored.</em> "Oxen, + asses, sheep, raiment, and whatsoever lost things," are + specified—servant <em>not</em>. Deut. + + xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were expressly forbidden to take back + the runaway servant to his master. Deut. xxiii. 15. + + </p> + <p> + (4.) <em>The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents</em>. + They made princely presents of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of + animals, merchandize, family utensils, precious metals, and grain, armor, + &c. are among their recorded <em>gifts</em>. Giving presents to + superiors and persons of rank when visiting them, and at other times, was a + standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2 Chron. xvii. 5. Abraham + to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy of Egypt. Gen. + xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad + to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath Pileser, 2 Kings xvi. + 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings, x. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, + 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no + servants were given as presents—though that was a prevailing fashion + in the surrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16; Gen. xx. 14. + + </p> + <p> + OBJECTION 1. <em>Laban</em> GAVE <em>handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's + wives</em>. Without enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent, + it is enough to say that the handmaids of wives, at that time, were + themselves regarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. + That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, + (Gen. xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1) also by the equality of their children + with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise—had Laban given + them <em>as articles of property</em>, then, indeed, the example of + this "good old patriarch and slaveholder," Saint Laban, would have + been a fore-closer to all argument. + + </p> + <p> + Ah! We remember his jealousy for <em>religion</em>—his holy + indignation when he found that his "GODS" were stolen! How he mustered his + clan, and plunged over the desert in hot pursuit, seven days, by forced + marches; how he ransacked a whole caravan, sifting the contents of + every tent, little heeding such small matters as domestic privacy, or female + seclusion, for lo! the zeal of his "IMAGES" had eaten him up! + + </p> + <p> + No wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled before + the free gusts, should scud under the lee of such a pious worthy to + haul up and refit; invoking his protection, and the benediction of his + "GODS!" + + </p> + <p> + OBJECTION 2. <em>Servants were enumerated in inventories of property</em>. + If that proves <em>servants</em> property, it proves <em>wives</em> + property. "<em>Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not + covet thy neighbor's</em> WIFE, <em>nor his man servant, nor his + maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy + neighbor's</em>" EXODUS xx. 17. An examination of + + all the places in which servants are included among beasts, chattels, + &c., will show, that in inventories of <em>mere property</em>, + servants are not included, or if included, it is in such a way, as to show + that they are not regarded as <em>property</em>. Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when + the design is to show, not merely the wealth but the <em>greatness</em> + of any personage, that he is a man of distinction, a ruler, a prince, + servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word, if + <em>riches</em> alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if + <em>greatness</em>, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. <em>"And + Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold."</em> No mention + of <em>servants</em>. So in the fifth verse; Lot's riches are enumerated, + "<em>And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents</em>." In the seventh + verse servants are mentioned, "<em>And there was a strife between the</em> + HERDMEN <em>of Abraham's cattle and the</em> HERDMEN <em>of Lot's + cattle</em>". See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen. xxxiv. 23; Job. xlii. 12; + 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; Job 1. 3-5; Deut. viii. 12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, + and xxvi. 13, and xxx. 43. + + </p> + <p> + Divers facts dropped incidentally, show that when servants are mentioned in + connection with property, it is in such a way as to <em>distinguish</em> + them from it. When Jacob was about to leave Laban, his wives say, "All the + <em>riches</em> which thou hast taken from our father, that is ours and + our children's." Then follows an inventory of property. "All his cattle," "all + his goods," "the cattle of his getting," &c. He had a large number of + servants at the time, <em>but they are not included with his + property</em>. Compare Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16-18. + + </p> + <p> + When he sent messengers to Esau, in order to secure his respect, and impress + him with an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him not only of + <i>his</i> RICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that Jacob had + "<em>oxen, and asses, and flocks, and men servants, and maid + servants</em>." Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the present which he sent, there + were no servants; though he seems to have aimed to give it as much variety as + possible. Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see also Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7; Gen. xxxiv. 23. As + flocks and herds were the <em>staples</em> of wealth, a large number of + servants <em>presupposed</em> large possessions of cattle, which would + require many herdsmen. Further. When servants are spoken of in connection with + <em>mere property</em>, the terms used to express the latter do not + include the former. + + </p> + <p> + The Hebrew word <i>Mickna</i> is an + illustration. It is a derivative of + <i>Kana</i>, to procure, to buy, and its + meaning is, a <em>possession, wealth, riches</em>. It occurs more than + forty times in the Old Testament—and is applied always to <em>mere + property</em>—generally to domestic animals, + + but <em>never</em> to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned + in <em>distinction</em> from the + <i>Mickna.</i> See Gen. xii. 5. + <em>"And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son. And all + their</em> SUBSTANCE <em>that they had gathered, and the souls that they + had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of + Canaan</em>." <em>Substance gathered</em> and <em>souls gotten</em>! + Many will have it, that these <em>souls</em> were a part of Abraham's + <em>substance</em> (notwithstanding the pains here taken to separate them + from it)—that they were <em>slaves</em>—probably captives in + war, and now, by right of conquest, taken with him in his migration as part of + his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually, or in heart, would + torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless phrase as + "<em>the souls that they had gotten</em>?" Until the slave trade breathed + its haze upon the vision of the church, and smote her with palsy and decay, + commentators saw no slavery in, "The souls that they had gotten." + In the Targum of Onkelos<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN13"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN13"></a> it is thus rendered, "The + souls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Targum of + Jonathan, thus: "The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran." In the + Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, placed by + Jewish Rabbis at the head of their commentators, thus renders it: "The souls + whom they had brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one of the most learned + of the Christian fathers: "The persons whom they had proselyted." The Persian + version thus gives the whole verse, "And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot + his brother's son, and all their wealth which they had accumulated, and + the souls which they had <em>made</em>." The Vulgate version thus + translates it, "Universam substantiam quam possederant et animas quas fecerant + in Haran." "The entire wealth which they possessed, and the souls + which they had made." The Syriac thus, "All their possessions which + they possessed, and the souls which they had made in Haran." The + Arabic, "All their property which they had acquired, and the souls + whom they had made in Haran." The Samarian, "All the wealth + which they had gathered, and the souls which they had made in + Haran." Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our present + translation of the English Bible, renders it as follows:—"Quas de + idolotraria + + converterunt<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN14"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN14"></a>." "Those whom they have converted from + idolatry."—Paulus Fagius<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN15"><sup>C</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN15"></a>. "Quas + instituerant in religione."—"Those whom they had instructed in + religion."—Luke Franke, a German commentator who lived two centuries + ago. "Quas legi subjicerant."—"Those whom they had brought to obey the + law." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN13"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN13">A</a>: The Targums are Chaldee + paraphrases of parts of the Old Testament. The Targum of Onkelos is for + the most part, a very accurate and faithful translation of the original, and + was probably made at about the commencement of the Christian era. The Targum + of Jonathan Ben Uzziel bears about the same date. The Targum of Jerusalem was + probably about five hundred years later. + + </p> + <p> + The Israelites, during their long captivity in Babylon, lost as a body, their + knowledge of their own language. These translations of the Hebrew Scriptures + into the Chaldee, the language which they acquired in Babylon, were thus + called for by the necessity of the case. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN14"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN14">B</a>: See his "Brevis explicatio sensus + literalis totius Scripture." + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN15"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN15">C</a>: This eminent Hebrew + scholar was invited to England by Cranmer, then Archbishop of Canterbury, + to superintend the translation of the Bible into English, under the patronage + of Henry the Eighth. He had hardly commenced the work when he died. This was + nearly a century before the date of our present translation. + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_equ"></a></h3> + <p> + 2. <em>The condition of servants in their masters' families, the privileges + which they shared in common with the children, and their recognition as + equals by the highest officers of the government—make the doctrine that + they were mere</em> COMMODITIES, <em>an absurdity.</em> The testimony of + Paul, in Gal. iv. 1, gives an insight into the condition of servants. + <em>"Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child,</em> + DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, <em>though he be lord of all."</em></p> + <p> + That Abraham's servants were voluntary,—that their interests were + identified with those of their master's family—that they were regarded + with great affection by the household, and that the utmost confidence + was reposed in them, is shown in the arming of 318 of them for the recovery + of Lot and his family from captivity. See Gen. xiv. 14, 15. + + </p> + <p> + When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess + Rebekah did not disdain to say to him, "Drink, MY Lord," as "she + hasted and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink," + and "she hasted and emptied her pitcher, and ran again unto the well, + and drew for all his camels." Laban, the brother of Rebekah, prepared the + house for his reception, "<em>ungirded his camels, and brought him + water to wash his feet, and the men's feet that were with him!"</em></p> + <p> + In the 9th chapter of 1 Samuel, we have an account of a high festival in the + city of Zuph, at which Samuel, the chief judge and ruler in + Israel, presided. None sat down at the feast but those that were bidden. + And only "about <em>thirty</em> persons" were invited. Quite a select + party!—the elite of the city of Zuph! Saul and his servant arrived at + Zuph just as the party was assembling; and <em>both</em> of them, at + Samuel's solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. <em>"And Samuel + took Saul and his</em> SERVANT, <em>and brought</em> THEM + <em>into the</em> PARLOR(!) <i>and made</i> THEM + <em>sit in the</em> CHIEFEST SEATS <em>among those that were + bidden."</em> A <em>servant</em> invited by the chief judge, ruler, and + prophet in Israel, to dine publicly with a select party, in company with his + master, who was + <em>at the same time anointed King of Israel</em>; and this servant + introduced by Samuel into the PARLOR, and assigned, with his master, to the + <em>chiefest seat</em> at the table! This was "<em>one</em> of the + servants" of <em>Kish</em>, Saul's father; not the <em>steward</em> + or the <em>chief</em> of them—not at all a <em>picked</em> + man, but "<em>one</em> of the servants;" <em>any</em> one that could + be most easily spared, as no endowments specially rare would be likely to find + scope in looking after asses. + + </p> + <p> + Again: we learn from 1 Kings xvi. 8, 9, that Elah, the King of Israel, + was slain by Zimri, one of his chief officers, at a festive + entertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with whom + he seems to have been on terms of familiarity. Without detailing other + cases, we refer the reader to the intercourse between Gideon and his + servant.—Judges vii. 10, 11.—Jonathan and his + servant.—1 Samuel xiv. 1-14.—Elisha and his servant. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_Gib"></a></h3> + <p> + 3. <em>The condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrew + commonwealth, shows that they were neither articles of property, nor + even</em> INVOLUNTARY <em>servants</em>. The condition of the + inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the + Israelites, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and truly they + are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from it. Milton's + devils made desperate snatches at fruit that turned to ashes on their lips. + The spirit of slavery raves under tormenting gnawings, and casts about in + blind phrenzy for something to ease, or even to <em>mock</em> them. But + for this, it would never have clutched at the Gibeonites, for even the + incantations of the demon cauldron, could not extract from their case enough + to tantalize starvation's self. But to the question. What was the condition + of the Gibeonites under the Israelites? + + </p> + <p> + (1.) <em>It was voluntary</em>. It was their own proposition to Joshua to + become servants. Joshua ix. 8, 11. Their proposition was accepted, but + the kind of service which they should perform, was not specified until + their gross imposition came to light; they were then assigned to menial + offices in the tabernacle. + + </p> + <p> + (2.) <em>They were not domestic servants in the families of the + Israelites</em>. They still continued to reside in their own cities, + cultivating their own fields, tending their flocks and herds, and exercising + the functions of a <em>distinct</em>, though not independent community. + They were <em>subject</em> to the Jewish nation as + <em>tributaries</em>. So far from being distributed among the Israelites, + their family relations broken up, and their internal organization as a + distinct people abolished, they seem to have remained a separate, and, in + some respects, an independent community for many + + centuries. When they were attacked by the Amorites, they applied to + the Israelites as confederates for aid—it was promptly rendered, their + enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in the occupation of + their cities, while all Israel returned to Gilgal. Joshua x. 6-18. Long + afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and God sent upon Israel a three + years' famine for it. David said to the Gibeonites, "What shall I do + for you, and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless + the inheritance of the Lord?" At their demand, he delivered up to + them, seven of the royal family, five of them the sons of Michal, his own + former wife. 2 Samuel xxi. 1-9. The whole transaction was a formal + recognition of the Gibeonites as a separate people. There is no intimation + that they served families, or individuals of the Israelites, but only + the "house of God," or the Tabernacle. This was established first at + Gilgal, a day's journey from the cities of the Gibeonites; and then at + Shiloh, nearly two days' journey from them; where it continued about + 350 years. During all this period, the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient + cities and territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent + from their cities at any one time in attendance on the tabernacle. + + </p> + <p> + (1.) Whenever allusion is made to them in the history, the main body + are spoken of as <em>at home</em>. + + </p> + <p> + (2.) It is preposterous to suppose that their tabernacle services could + have furnished employment for all the inhabitants of these four cities. + One of them "was a great city, as one of the royal cities;" so large, + that a confederacy of five kings, apparently the most powerful in the + land, was deemed necessary for its destruction. It is probable that the + men were divided into classes, and thus ministered at the tabernacle in + rotation—each class a few days or weeks at a time. This service was + their <em>national tribute</em> to the Israelites, rendered for the + privilege of residence and protection under their government. No service + seems to have been required of the <em>females</em>. As these Gibeonites + were Canaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by + impudent imposition, hypocrisy, and lying, we might assuredly expect that + they would reduce <em>them</em> to the condition of chattels and property, + if there was <em>any</em> case in which God permitted them to do so. + + </p> + </div> + <p> + 7. <em>Because, throughout the Mosaic system, God warns them against + holding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the + Egyptians</em>. How often are the Israelites pointed back to the grindings + of their prison-house! What motives to the exercise of justice and + kindness towards their servants, are held out to their fears in threatened + judgements; to their hopes in promised good; and to all within them + + that could feel, by those oft repeated words of tenderness and terror! + "For ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt"—waking anew the memory + of tears and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them. + + </p> + <p> + That the argument derived from the condition of the Israelites in + Egypt, and God's condemnation of it, may be appreciated, it is important + that the Egyptian bondage should be analyzed. We shall then be + able to ascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, and what + they retained. + + </p> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_Egy"></a></h3> + <p> + EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) <em>The Israelites were not dispersed + among the families of Egypt, the property of individual + owners</em><a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN16"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN16"></a>. They + formed a <em>separate</em> community. See Gen. xlvi. 35. Ex. viii. 22, 24, + and ix. 26, and x. 23, and xi. 7, and ii. 9, and xvi. 22, and xvii. 5. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN16"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN16">A</a>: The Egyptians evidently had + <em>domestic</em> servants living in their families; these may have + been slaves; allusion is made to them in Exodus ix. 14, 20, 21. But none of + the Israelites were included in this class. + </p> + <p> + (2.) <i>They had the exclusive possession of the land of + Goshen</i><a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN17"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN17"></a>, <em>one + of the richest and most productive parts of Egypt</em>. Gen. xlv. 18, and + xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN17"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN17">B</a>: The land of Goshen was a large tract of + country, east of the Pelusian arm of the Nile, and between it and the head of + the Red Sea, and the lower border of Palestine. The probable centre of that + portion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly, have been less than 60 + miles from the city. From the best authorities it would seem that the extreme + western boundary of Goshen must have been many miles distant from Egypt. See + "Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt," an able article by Professor + Robinson, in the Biblical Repository for October, 1832. + </p> + <p> + (3.) <em>They lived in permanent dwellings</em>. These were + <em>houses</em>, not <em>tents</em>. In Ex. xii. 6, the two side + <em>posts</em>, and the upper door <em>posts</em> of the houses are + mentioned, and in the 22d, the two side posts and the lintel. Each family + seems to have occupied a house <em>by itself</em>—Acts + vii. 20, Ex. xii. 4—and from the regulation about the eating of the + Passover, they could hardly have been small ones—Ex. xii. 4—and + probably contained separate apartments, and places for seclusion. Ex. ii. 2, + 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex. xii. + 11. To have had their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19, and xiv. 11. + + </p> + <p> + (4.) <em>They owned "a mixed multitude of flocks and herds</em>," and + "<i>very much cattle</i>." Ex. xii. 32, 37, 38. + + </p> + <p> + (5.) They had their own form of government, and preserved their + tribe and family divisions, and their internal organization throughout, + though still a province of Egypt, and <em>tributary</em> to it. Ex. ii. 1, + and xii. 19, 21, and vi. 14, 25, and v. 19, and iii. 16, 18. + + </p> + <p> + (6.) <em>They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal + of their own time</em>,—Ex. xxiii. 4, and iii. 16, 18, and xii. 6, + and ii. 9, + + and iv. 27, 29-31. Also to have practised the fine arts. Ex. xxxii. + 4, and xxxv. 32-35. + + </p> + <p> + (7.) <em>They were all armed</em>. Ex. xxxii. 27. + + </p> + <p> + (8.) <em>All the females seem to have known something of domestic + refinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled in + the working of fine fabrics</em>. Ex. xv. 20, and 35, 36. + + </p> + <p> + (9.) <em>They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians + seem to have regarded them as inviolable</em>. This we infer from the fact + that there is no intimation that the Egyptians dispossessed them of their + habitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or implements + of agriculture, or any article of property. + + </p> + <p> + (10.) <em>Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult + males</em>. Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could be + inferred; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the payment + of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. + Ex. ii. 29. + + </p> + <p> + (11.) So far from being fed upon a given allowance, their food was + abundant, and had great variety. "They sat by the flesh-pots," and + "did eat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3, and xxiv. 1, and xvii. 5, and + iv. 29, and vi. 14. Also, "they did eat fish freely, and cucumbers, + and melons, and leeks, and onions, and garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5, and x. + 18, and xx. 5. + + </p> + <p> + (12.) <em>That the great body of the people were not in the service of the + Egyptians, we infer</em> (1) from the fact, that the extent and variety of + their own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their crops as + would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocks + and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must have furnished + constant employment for the main body of the nation. + + </p> + <p> + (2.) During the plague of darkness, God informs us that "ALL the + children of Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that they + were <em>there</em> to enjoy it. + + </p> + <p> + (3.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only service + named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could have furnished + permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also + Ex. iv. 29-31. + + </p> + <p> + Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it was, as now, + in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given quota, drafted + off periodically, so that comparatively but a small portion of the nation + would be absent <em>at any one time</em>. + + </p> + <p> + Probably there was the same requisition upon the Israelites for one-fifth + part of the proceeds of their labor, that was laid upon the Egyptians. + See Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of taking it out of their <em>crops</em>, + (Goshen being better for <em>pasturage</em> than crops) they exacted it of + them in brick making; and it is quite probable that only the + <em>poorer</em> Israelites were required to work for the Egyptians at all, + the wealthier being able to pay their tribute, in money. See Exod. iv. 27-31. + + </p> + <p> + This was the bondage in Egypt. Contrast it with American slavery. + Have our slaves "very much cattle," and "a mixed multitude of flocks + and herds?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own? Do + they "<em>sit by the flesh-pots</em>," "<em>eat fish freely</em>," + and "<em>eat bread to the full</em>?" Do they live in a separate + community, at a distance from their masters, in their distinct tribes, under + their own rulers and officers? Have they the exclusive occupation of an + extensive and fertile tract of country for the culture of their own crops, and + for rearing immense herds of <em>their own</em> cattle—and all these + held independently of their masters, and regarded by them as inviolable? Are + our female slaves free from all exactions of labor and liabilities of + outrage?—and whenever employed, are they paid wages, as was the + Israelitish woman, when employed by the king's daughter? Exod. ii. 9. Have + the females entirely, and the males to a considerable extent, the disposal of + their own time? Have they the means for cultivating social refinements, + for practising the fine arts, and for intellectual and moral improvement? + + </p> + <p> + THE ISRAELITES, UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND + PRIVILEGES. True, "<em>their lives were made bitter, and all the service + wherein they made them serve was with rigor</em>." But what was that, when + compared with the incessant toil of American slaves, the robbery of all their + time and earnings, and even the "power to own any thing, or acquire any + thing"—the "quart of corn a day," the legal allowance of + food<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN18"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN18"></a>!—their <em>only</em> clothing for one half the year, + "<em>one</em> shirt and <em>one</em> pair of + pantaloons<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN19"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN19"></a>!"—the <em>two hours and a half</em> only for rest and + refreshment in the twenty-four<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN20"><sup>C</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN20"></a>!—their dwellings, <em>hovels</em>, + unfit for human residence, commonly with but one apartment, where + both sexes and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of + + the field. Add to this, the mental ignorance, and moral degradation; + the daily separations of kindred, the revelries of lust, the lacerations + and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by the laws of the South, and patronized + by its pubic sentiment. What, we ask, was the bondage of Egypt + when compared with this? And yet for <em>her</em> oppression of the poor, + God smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she + passed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, + knew her no more. Ah! "<em>I have seen the afflictions of my people, and + I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them</em>." HE + DID COME, and Egypt sank, a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over + her. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN18"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN18">A</a>: The law of North Carolina. See Haywood's Manual, + 524-5 + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN19"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN19">B</a>: The law of Louisiana. See Martin's Digest, + 610. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN20"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN20">C</a>: The whole amount of + time secured by the law of Louisiana. See Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's + Digest, 610-12 + </p> + <p> + If such was God's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, + of how much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy, + who cloak with religion, a system, in comparison with which the + bondage of Egypt dwindles to nothing? + + </p> + <p> + Let those believe who can, that God gave his people permission to + hold human beings, robbed of <em>all</em> their rights, while he + threatened them with wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the + <em>far lighter</em> oppression of Egypt—which robbed its victims + of only the <em>least</em> and <em>cheapest</em> of their rights, and + left the <em>females</em> unplundered even of these. What! <em>Is God + divided against himself</em>? When he had just turned Egypt into + a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied dead, and + his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of her torment + went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did He license the + VICTIMS of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As <em>Lawgiver</em>, did he + <em>create</em> a system tenfold more grinding than that, for which he had + just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and cloven down his princes, and overwhelmed his + hosts, and blasted them with His thunder, till "hell was moved to meet + them at their coming?" + + </p> + <p> + Having touched upon the general topics which we design to include + in this inquiry, we proceed to examine various Scripture facts and passages, + which will doubtless be set in array against the foregoing conclusions. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_OBJ"></a> + OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. + + </h3> + <p> + The advocates of slavery are always at their wits end when they + try to press the Bible into their service. Every movement shows that + they are hard-pushed. Their odd conceits and ever varying shifts, their + forced constructions, lacking even plausibility, their bold assumptions, + and blind guesswork, not only proclaim their <em>cause</em> desperate, but + themselves. Some of the Bible defences thrown around slavery by + ministers of the Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and + historical fact, that it were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, + ignorance, or blasphemy, predominates, in compound. Each strives so + lustily for the mastery, it may be set down a drawn battle. + + </p> + <p> + How often has it been set up in type, that the color of the negro is + the <em>Cain-mark</em>, propagated downward. Doubtless Cain's posterity + started an opposition to the ark, and rode out the flood with flying + streamers! Why should not a miracle be wrought to point such an argument, and + fill out for slaveholders a Divine title-deed, vindicating the ways of God + to men? + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_Canaan"></a></h3> + <p> + OBJECTION 1. "<em>Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be + unto his brethren</em>." Gen. i. 25. + + </p> + <p> + This prophecy of Noah is the vade mecum of + slaveholders, and they never venture abroad without it. It is a pocket-piece + for sudden occasion—a keepsake to dote over—a charm to spell-bind + opposition, and a magnet to attract "whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh + a lie." But closely as they cling to it, "cursed be Canaan" is a poor drug to + stupify a throbbing conscience—a mocking lullaby, vainly wooing slumber + to unquiet tossings, and crying "Peace, be still," where God wakes + war, and breaks his thunders. + + </p> + <p> + Those who plead the curse on Canaan to justify negro slavery, + <em>assume</em> all the points in debate. + + </p> + <p> + 1. That the condition prophesied was <em>slavery</em>, rather than the + mere <em>rendering of service</em> to others, and that it was the bondage + of <em>individuals</em> rather than the condition of a <em>nation + tributary</em> to another, and in <em>that</em> sense its + <em>servant</em>. + + </p> + <p> + 2. That the <em>prediction</em> of crime <em>justifies</em> it; that + it grants absolution to those whose crimes fulfil it, if it does not transform + the crimes into <em>virtues</em>. How piously the Pharaohs might have + quoted God's prophecy to Abraham, "<em>Thy seed shall be in bondage, and + they shall afflict them for four hundred years</em>." And then, what + <em>saints</em> were those that crucified the Lord of glory! + + </p> + <p> + 3. That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas Africa + was peopled from Egypt and Ethiopia, and Mizraim settled Egypt, and + Cush, Ethiopia. See Gen. x. 15-19, for the location and boundaries + of Canaan's posterity. So on the assumption that African slavery fulfils + the prophecy, a curse pronounced upon one people, is quoted to + justify its infliction upon another. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan + includes all Ham's posterity. If so, the prophecy has not been + fulfilled. The other sons of Ham settled the Egyptian and Assyrian + empires, and conjointly with Shem the Persian, and afterward, to some + extent, the Grecian and Roman. The history of these nations gives + no verification of the prophecy. Whereas the history of Canaan's descendants, + for more than three thousand years, is a record of its fulfilment. + First, they were made tributaries by the Israelites. Then Canaan + was the servant of Shem. Afterward, by the Medes and Persians. + Then Canaan was the servant of Shem, and in part of the other sons of + Ham. Afterward, by the Macedonians, Grecians, and Romans, successively. + Then Canaan was the servant of Japhet, mainly, and secondarily + of the other sons of Ham. Finally, they were subjected by + the Ottoman dynasty, where they yet remain. Thus Canaan is <em>now</em> + the servant of Shem and Japhet and the other sons of Ham. + + </p> + <p> + But it may still be objected, that though Canaan is the only one + <em>named</em> in the curse, yet the 22d and 23d verses show that it was + pronounced upon the posterity of Ham in general. "<em>And Ham, the father of + Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren + without</em>."—Verse 22. In verse 23, Shem and Japhet cover their + father with a garment. Verse 24, "<em>And Noah awoke from his wine, and + knew what his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said</em>," &c. + + </p> + <p> + It is argued that this younger son cannot be <em>Canaan</em>, as he was + not the <em>son</em>, but the <em>grandson</em> of Noah, and therefore + it must be <em>Ham</em>. We answer, whoever that "<em>younger + son</em>" was, or whatever he did, <em>Canaan</em> alone was named in + the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word + <i>Ben</i>, signifies son, grandson, + great-grandson, or <em>any one</em> of the posterity of an individual. + Gen. xxix. 5, "<em>And he said unto them, Know ye Laban, the</em> + SON <em>of Nahor</em>?" Yet Laban was the <em>grandson</em> of Nahor. + Gen. xxiv. 15, 29. In 2 Sam. xix. 24, it is said, "<em>Mephibosheth, + the</em> SON <em>of Saul, came down to meet the king</em>." But + Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan, and the <em>grandson</em> of Saul. + 2 Sam. ix. 6. So Ruth iv. 17. "<em>There is a</em> SON <em>born to + Naomi</em>." This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. Ruth + iv. 13, 15. So 2 Sam. xxi. 6. "<em>Let seven men of his (Saul's)</em> + SONS <em>be delivered unto us</em>," &c. Seven of Saul's + <em>grandsons</em> were delivered up. 2 Sam. xxi. 8, 9. So Gen. xxi. 28, + "<em>And hast not suffered me to kiss my</em> SONS <em>and my + daughters</em>;" and in the 55th verse, "<em>And early in the morning + Laban rose up and kissed his</em> SONS," &c. These were his + <em>grandsons</em>. So 2 Kings ix. 20, "<em>The driving of Jehu, + the</em> SON <em>of Nimshi</em>." So 1 Kings xix. 16. But Jehu + was the <em>grandson</em> of Nimshi. 2 Kings ix. 2, 14. Who will forbid + the inspired writer to use the <em>same</em> word when speaking of + <em>Noah's</em> grandson? + + </p> + <p> + Further, if Ham were meant what propriety in calling him the + <em>younger</em> son? The order in which Noah's sons are always mentioned, + makes Ham the <em>second</em>, and not the <em>younger</em> son. If it + be said that Bible usage is variable, and that the order of birth is not + always preserved in enumerations; the reply is, that, enumeration in the order + of birth, is the <em>rule</em>, in any other order the + <em>exception</em>. Besides, if the younger member of a family, takes + precedence of older ones in the family record, it is a mark of pre-eminence, + either in original endowments, or providential instrumentality. + Abraham, though sixty years younger than his eldest brother, + and probably the youngest of Terah's sons, stands first in the family + genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history warrants the idea of his pre-eminence; + besides, the Hebrew word <i>Hakkaton</i>, + rendered <em>younger</em>, means the <em>little, small</em>. The same + word is used in Isaiah xl. 22. "A LITTLE ONE <em>shall become a + thousand</em>." Also in Isaiah xxii. 24. "<em>All vessels of</em> SMALL + <em>quantity</em>." So Psalms cxv. 13. "<em>He will bless them that + fear the Lord, both</em> SMALL <em>and great</em>." Also Exodus xviii. + 22. "<em>But every</em> SMALL <em>matter they shall judge</em>." It + would be a perfectly literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated + thus, "when Noah knew what his little son<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN21"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN21"></a>, or grandson + (<i>Beno hakkaton</i>) + had done unto him, he said, cursed be Canaan," &c. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN21"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN21">A</a>: The French + language in this respect follows the same analogy. Our word + <em>grandson</em> being in French, <i>petit + fils</i>, (little son.) + </p> + <p> + Even if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the assumption that their + enslavement is a fulfilment of this prophecy, lacks even plausibility, for, + only a mere <em>fraction</em> of the inhabitants of Africa have at any one + time been the slaves of other nations. If the objector say in reply, that + a large majority of the Africans have always been slaves at <em>home</em>, + we answer, 1st. <em>It is false in point of fact</em>, though zealously + bruited often to serve a turn. 2d. <em>If it were true</em>, how does it + help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants + shall he be unto his brethren" not unto <em>himself</em>! + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_Ex21_20"></a></h3> + <p> + OBJECTION II.—"<em>If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, + and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, + if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his + money</em>." Exodus xxi. 20, 21. + + </p> + <p> + Arguments drawn from the Mosaic system in support of slavery, originate + in a misconception both of its genius, <em>as a whole</em>, and of the + design and scope of its most simple provisions. The verses quoted above, + afford an illustration in point. + + </p> + <p> + What was the design of this regulation? Was it to grant masters an + indulgence to beat servants with impunity? and an assurance, that if they + beat them to death, the offence would not be <em>capital</em>? This is + substantially what some modern Doctors tell us. What Deity do such men + worship? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human hecatombs, + and snuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered out from Sinai's + flames, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," offer a bounty on <em>murder</em>? Whoever + analyzes the Mosaic system—the condition of the people for whom + it was made—their inexperience in government—ignorance of judicial + proceedings—laws of evidence, &c., will find a moot court in + session, trying law points—setting definitions, or laying down rules of + evidence, in almost every chapter. Numbers xxxv. 10-22; Deuteronomy xi. 11, + and xix. 4-6; Leviticus xxiv. 19-22; Exodus, xxi. 18, 19, are a few, + out of many cases stated, with tests furnished by which to detect + <em>the intent</em>, in actions brought before them. The detail gone into, + in the verses quoted, is manifestly to enable the judges to get at the + <em>motive</em> of the action, and find out whether the master + <em>designed</em> to kill. + + </p> + <p> + 1. "If a man smite his servant with a <em>rod</em>."—The instrument + used, gives a clue to the <em>intent</em>. See Numbers xxxv. 16, 18. It + was a <em>rod</em>, not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any + other death-weapon—hence, from the <i>kind</i> of + instrument, no design to <em>kill</em> would be inferred; for + <em>intent</em> to kill would hardly have taken a <em>rod</em> for its + weapon. But if the servant dies <em>under his hand</em>, then the + unfitness of the instrument, instead of being evidence in his favor, is point + blank against him; for, to strike him with a <em>rod</em> until he + <em>dies</em>, argues a <em>great many</em> blows laid on with + <em>great</em> violence, and this kept up to the death-gasp, establishes + the point of <em>intent to kill</em>. Hence the sentence, "He shall + <em>surely</em> be punished." The case is plain and strong. But if he + continued <em>a day or two</em>, the <em>length of time that he + lived</em>, together with the <em>kind</em> of instrument + used, and the fact that the master had a pecuniary interest in his + <em>life</em>, ("he is his <em>money</em>,") all, made out a strong + case of circumstantial evidence, showing that the master did not + <em>design</em> to kill; and required + + a corresponding decision and sentence. A single remark on the + word "punished:" in Exodus xxi. 20, 21, the Hebrew word here rendered + <i>punished</i>, + (<i>Nakum</i>,) is <em>not so rendered + in another instance</em>. Yet it occurs thirty-five times in the Old + Testament—in almost every instance, it is translated + <em>avenge</em>—in a few, "<em>to take vengeance</em>," or + "<em>to revenge</em>," and in this instance ALONE, "<em>punish</em>." + As it stands in our translation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the + <em>master</em>—the <em>master</em> in the 21st verse, is to be + <em>punished</em>, and in the 22d <em>not</em> to be punished; + whereas the preceding pronoun refers neither to the <em>master</em> nor + to the <em>servant</em>, but to the <em>crime</em>, and the word + rendered <em>punished</em>, should have been rendered + <em>avenged</em>. The meaning is this: If a man smite his servant + or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, IT (the death) + shall surely be avenged, or literally, <em>by avenging it shall be + avenged</em>; that is, the <em>death</em> of the servant shall be + <em>avenged</em> by the <em>death</em> of the master. So in the next + verse—"If he continues a day or two," his death shall not be avenged by + the <em>death</em> of the <em>master</em>, for in that case + the crime was to be adjudged <em>manslaughter</em>, and not + <em>murder</em>, as in the first instance. In the following verse, another + case of personal injury is stated, not intentional, nor extending to life or + limb, a mere accidental hurt, for which the injurer is to pay <em>a sum of + money</em>; and yet our translators employ the same phraseology in both + places. One, an instance of deliberate, wanton, <em>killing by + piecemeal</em>. The other and <em>accidental</em>, and comparatively + slight injury—of the inflicter, in both cases, they say the same + thing! "<em>He shall surely be punished</em>." Now, just the difference + which common sense would expect to find in such cases, where GOD legislates, + is strongly marked in the original. In the case of the servant wilfully + murdered, God says, "It (the death) shall surely be <em>avenged</em>," + (<i>Nakum</i>,) that is, <em>the life + of the wrong doer shall expiate the crime</em>. The same word is used in the + Old Testament, when the greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the + perpetrators, whether individuals or communities, to <em>destruction</em>. + In the case of the <em>unintentional</em> injury, in the following verse, + God says, "He shall surely be" <em>fined</em>, + (<i>Aunash</i>.) "He shall + <em>pay</em> as the judges determine." The simple meaning of the word + <i>Aunash</i>, is to lay a fine. It is + used in Deut. xxii. 19. They shall + <i>amerce</i> him in one hundred + shekels," and in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3—"He condemned + (<i>mulcted</i>) the land in a hundred talents of + gold.—This is the general use of the word, and its primary + signification. That <em>avenging</em> the death of the servant, was + neither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor amercing the master in damages, but + that it was <em>taking the master's life</em> we infer. + + </p> + <p> + 1. From the <em>Bible usage</em> of the word Nakam. See Genesis iv. + 24; Joshua x. 13; Judges xv. 7-xvi. 28; 1 Samuel xiv. 24-xviii. 25-xxv. + 31; 2 Samuel iv. 8; Judges v. 2; 1 Samuel xxv. 26-33, &c. &c. + + </p> + <p> + 2. From the express statute in such case provided. Leviticus xxiv. + 17. "<em>He that killeth</em> ANY <em>man</em> shall surely be + put to death." Also Numbers xxxv. 30, 31. "<em>Whoso killeth</em> + ANY <em>person</em>, the murderer + shall be put to death. <em>Moreover ye shall take</em> NO + SATISFACTION <em>for the life of a murderer which is guilty of death, + but he shall surely be put to death</em>." + + </p> + <p> + 3. The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, "Death by the + sword shall assuredly be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem thus, + "Vengeance shall be taken for him to the <em>uttermost</em>." Jarchi gives + the same rendering. The Samaritan version thus, "He shall die the + death." + + </p> + <p> + Again, the last clause in the 21st verse ("for he is his money") is + often quoted to prove that the servant is his master's <em>property</em>, and <em>therefore</em>, + if he died, the master was not <em>to be punished</em>. <em>Because</em>, 1st. A + man may dispose of his <em>property</em> as he pleases. 2d. If the servant + died of the injury, the master's <em>loss</em> was a sufficient punishment. A + word about the premises, before we notice the inferences. The assumption + is, that the phrase, "HE IS HIS MONEY," proves not only that + the servant is <em>worth money</em> to the master, but that he is an <em>article of property</em>. + If the advocates of slavery will take this principle of interpretation + into the Bible, and turn it loose, let them either give bonds for its + behavior, or else stand and draw in self-defence, "lest it turn again and + rend" them. If they endorse for it at one point, they must stand sponsors + all around the circle. It will be too late to cry for quarter when + they find its stroke clearing the whole table, and tilting them among + the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds with such expressions as + the following: "This (bread) <em>is</em> my body;" "this (wine) <em>is</em> my blood;" + "all they (the Israelites) <em>are</em> brass, and tin, and iron, and lead;" "this + <em>is</em> life eternal, that they might know thee;" "this (the water of the well + of Bethlehem) <em>is</em> the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their + lives;" "I <em>am</em> the lily of the valleys;" "a garden enclosed <em>is</em> my sister;" + "my tears <em>have been</em> my meat;" "the Lord God <em>is</em> a sun and a + shield;" "God <em>is</em> love;" "the Lord <em>is</em> my rock;" "the seven good + ears <em>are</em> seven years, and the seven good kine <em>are</em> seven years;" "the + seven thin and ill-favored kine <em>are</em> seven years, and the seven empty + ears blasted by the east wind <em>shall be</em> seven years of famine;" "he + <em>shall be</em> head, and thou <em>shall</em> be tail;" "the Lord <em>will</em> be a wall of fire;" + "they <em>shall</em> be one flesh;" "the tree of the field <em>is</em> man's life;" "God + <em>is</em> a consuming fire;" "he <em>is</em> his money," &c. A passion for the exact + <em>literalities</em> of Bible language is so amiable, it were hard not to gratify + it in this case. The words in the original are (Kaspo-hu,) "his <em>silver</em> + is he." The objector's principle of interpretation is, a philosopher's + stone! Its miracle touch transmutes five feet eight inches of flesh and + bones into <em>solid silver</em>! Quite a <em>permanent</em> servant, if not so nimble + with all—reasoning against "<em>forever</em>," is forestalled henceforth, and, + Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted. + + </p> + <p> + Who in his senses believes that in the expression, "<em>He is his money</em>," + the object was to inculcate the doctrine that the servant was a <i>chattel</i>? + The obvious meaning is, he is <em>worth money</em> to his master, and since, if + the master killed him, it would take money out of his pocket, the <em>pecuniary + loss</em>, the <em>kind of instrument used</em>, and <em>the fact of his living some + time after the injury</em>, (as, if the master <em>meant</em> to kill, he would be likely + to <em>do</em> it while about it,) all together make out a strong case of presumptive + evidence clearing the master of <em>intent to kill</em>. But let us look at the + objector's inferences. One is, that as the master might dispose of his + <em>property</em> as he pleased, he was not to be punished, if he destroyed it. + Answer. Whether the servant died under the master's hand, or continued + a day or two, he was <em>equally</em> his master's property, and the objector + admits that in the <em>first</em> case the master is to be "surely punished" for + destroying <em>his own property</em>! The other inference is, that since the + continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of <em>intent to kill</em>, the loss + of the slave would be a sufficient punishment for inflicting the injury + which caused his death. This inference makes the Mosaic law false to + its own principles. A <em>pecuniary loss</em>, constituted no part of the claims + of the law, where a person took the <em>life</em> of another. In such case, the law + utterly spurned money, however large the sum. God would not so cheapen + human life, as to balance it with such a weight. "<em>Ye shall take no satisfaction + for the life of a murderer, but he shall surely be put to death</em>." See + Numb. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable homicide, a case of death purely accidental, + as where an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no sum + of money availed to release from confinement in the city of refuge, until + the death of the High Priest. Numbers xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the + loss of the servant would be a penalty <em>adequate</em> to the desert of the master, + admits the master's <em>guilt</em>—his desert of <em>some</em> punishment, and it prescribes + a <em>kind</em> of punishment, rejected by the law, in all cases where + man took the life of man, whether with or without <em>intent</em> to kill. In + + short, the objector annuls an integral part of the system—resolves himself + into a legislature, with power in the premises, makes a <em>new</em> law, + and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit, both in kind and + quantity. Mosaic statutes amended, and Divine legislation revised and + improved! + + </p> + <p> + The master who struck out the tooth of a servant, whether intentionally + or not, was required to set him free for his tooth's sake. The + <em>pecuniary loss</em> to the master was the same as though the servant had + <em>died</em>. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so severely, + that after a day or two he dies of his wounds; another master accidentally + strikes out his servant's tooth, and his servant is free—<em>the pecuniary + loss of both masters is the same.</em> The objector contends that + the loss of the slave's services in the first case is punishment sufficient + for the crime of killing him; yet God commands the <em>same</em> punishment + for even the <em>accidental</em> knocking out of a <em>tooth</em>! Indeed, unless the injury + was done <em>inadvertently</em>, the loss of the servant's services is only a + <em>part</em> of the punishment—mere reparation to the <em>individual</em> for injury + done; the <em>main</em> punishment, that strictly <em>judicial</em>, was, reparation to the + <em>community</em> for injury to one of its members. To set the servant <em>free</em>, + and thus proclaim his injury, his right to redress, and the measure of it—answered + not the ends of public justice. The law made an example of + the offender, "those that remain might hear and fear." <em>"If a man + cause a blemish in his neighbour, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto + him. Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused + a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. You have one + manner of law as well for the</em> STRANGER <em>as for one of your own country</em>." + Lev. xxiv. 19, 20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out the tooth + of a servant, the law smote out <em>his</em> tooth—thus redressing the <em>public</em> + wrong; and it cancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus + giving some compensation for the injury done, and exempting him from + perilous liabilities in future. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_bond"></a></h3> + <p> + OBJECTION III. <em>Both the bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt + have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye + buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers + that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families + that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be + your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your + children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your + bondmen forever</em>. Lev. xxv. 44-46. + + </p> + <p> + The <em>points</em> in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic system + sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." 3. + "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." 4. "FOREVER." + + </p> + <p> + The <em>second</em> point, the <em>buying</em> of servants, has been already discussed, + see <a href="#E4_buy" class="ref">page 15</a>. And a part of the <em>third</em> (holding servants as a "possession." + See <a href="#E4_prop" class="ref">p. 36</a>.) We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is + derivable from the terms "bondmen," "inheritance," and "forever." + + </p> + <p> + I. BONDMEN. The fact that servants, from the heathen are called + "<i>bondmen</i>," while others are called "servants," is quoted as proof that + the former were slaves. As the <em>caprices</em> of King James' translators + were not divinely inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. + The word rendered <i>bondmen</i>, in this passage, is the same word uniformly + rendered <i>servants</i> elsewhere. To infer from this that the Gentile + servants were slaves, is absurd. Look at the use of the Hebrew word + "<i>Ebed</i>," the plural of which is here translated "<i>bondmen</i>." In Isaiah + xlii. 1, the <em>same word</em> is applied to Christ. "Behold my <em>servant</em> (bondman, + slave?) whom I have chosen, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth." + So Isaiah lii. 13. "Behold my <em>servant</em> (Christ) shall deal + prudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it is applied to <i>King Rehoboam</i>. "And + they (the old men) spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a <em>servant</em> + (Ebed) unto this people this day, and will serve them and answer them, + and wilt speak good words to them, then they will be thy <em>servants</em> forever." + In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, it is applied to the king and all the + nation. In fine, the word is applied to <em>all</em> persons doing service to + others—to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to tributaries, to all + the subjects of governments, to younger sons—defining their relation to + the first born, who is called <i>Lord</i> and <i>ruler</i>—to prophets, to kings, to + the Messiah, and in respectful addresses not less than <em>fifty</em> times in the + Old Testament. + + </p> + <p> + If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, why had + their language <em>no word</em> that <em>meant slave</em>? If Abraham had thousands, + and if they <em>abounded</em> under the Mosaic system, why had they no such + <em>word</em> as slave or slavery? That language must be wofully poverty + stricken, which has <em>no signs</em> to represent the most <em>common</em> and <em>familiar</em> + objects and conditions. To represent by the same word, and without + figure, <em>property</em>, and the <em>owner</em> of that property, is a solecism. Ziba + was an "Ebed," yet he <em>"owned</em>" (!) twenty <i>Ebeds</i>. In <em>English</em>, we + have both the words <em>servant</em> and <em>slave</em>. Why? Because we have both + the <em>things</em>, and need <em>signs</em> for them. If the tongue had a sheath, as + swords have scabbards, we should have some <em>name</em> for it: but our dictionaries + + give us none. Why? because there is no such <em>thing</em>. But + the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word <i>Ebed</i> if they + spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. The servants of individuals + among the heathen are scarcely ever alluded to. <i>National</i> servants + or <i>tributaries</i>, are spoken of frequently, but so rarely are their + <i>domestic</i> servants alluded to, no necessity existed, even if they were + slaves, for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being domestics, + under <em>heathen laws and usages</em>, proclaimed their <i>liabilities</i>; their + locality told their condition; so that in applying to them the word <i>Ebed</i>, + there would be no danger of being misunderstood. But if the Israelites + had not only <em>servants</em>, but besides these, a multitude of <em>slaves</em>, a <em>word + meaning slave</em>, would have been indispensable for purposes of every + day convenience. Further, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many + sentinels on every side, to warn off foreign practices. The border + ground of Canaan, was quarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse + between the <em>without</em> and the <em>within</em>, not of <em>persons</em>, but of + <em>usages</em>. The fact that the Hebrew language had no words corresponding + to <i>slave</i> and <i>slavery</i>, though not a conclusive argument, is no slight + corroborative. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_forever"></a></h3> + <p> + II. "FOREVER."—"They shall be your bondmen <em>forever</em>." This + is quoted to prove that servants were to serve during their life time, and + their posterity, from generation to generation. + + </p> + <p> + No such idea is contained in the passage. The word <em>forever</em>, instead + of defining the length of <i>individual</i> service, proclaims the <i>permanence</i> + of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that + their <i>permanent domestics</i> should be of the <i>Strangers</i>, and not of the Israelites; + and it declares the duration of that general provision. As if + God had said, "You shall <em>always</em> get your <em>permanent</em> laborers from + the nations round about you—your <i>servants</i> shall always be of <i>that</i> class + of persons." As it stands in the original, it is plain—"<em>Forever of them + shall ye serve yourselves</em>." This is the literal rendering of the Hebrew + words, which, in our version, are translated, "<em>They shall be your bondmen + forever</em>." + + </p> + <p> + This construction is in keeping with the whole of the passage. "Both + thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the + <em>heathen</em> (the nations) that are round about you. OF THEM shall ye buy + bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers + that do sojourn among you, OF THEM shall ye buy," &c. The design + of this passage is manifest from its structure. It was to point out the + <i>class</i> of persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, + + and the <i>way</i> in which they were to get them. That "<em>forever</em>" refers + to the permanent relations of a <i>community</i>, rather than to the services of + <i>individuals</i>, is a fair inference from the form of the expression, "THEY + shall be your possession. Ye shall take <em>them</em> as an inheritance for your + children to inherit them for a possession." To say nothing of the uncertainty + of <em>these individuals</em> surviving those <em>after</em> whom they are to + live, the language used, applies more naturally to a <i>body</i> of people, than + to <i>individual</i> servants. + + </p> + <p> + But suppose it otherwise; still <i>perpetual</i> service could not be argued + from the term <i>forever</i>. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter, + limit it absolutely by the jubilee. "<em>Then shall thou cause the trumpet + of the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month: in the + day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout</em> ALL <em>your + land." "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty + throughout all the land unto</em> ALL <em>the inhabitants thereof</em>." + + </p> + <p> + It may be objected that "inhabitants" here means <i>Israelitish</i> inhabitants + alone. The command is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the + land unto ALL <em>the inhabitants thereof</em>." Besides, in the sixth verse, + there is an enumeration of the different classes of the inhabitants, in + which servants and strangers are included. "<em>And the Sabbath of the + land shall be meet for</em> YOU—[For whom? For you <i>Israelites</i> only?]—<em>for + thee, and for thy</em> SERVANT, <em>and for thy maid, and for thy hired + servant, and for thy</em> STRANGER <em>that sojourneth with thee</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Further, in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year, + the strangers are included in the precepts, prohibitions, and promised + blessings. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in, by the day of + atonement. What was the design of these institutions? The day of + atonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and the year of jubilee, + the gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement and a jubilee + to <em>Jews</em> only? Were they the types of sins remitted, and of salvation, + proclaimed to the nation of <em>Israel</em> alone? Is there no redemption for + us Gentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope presumption and + impiety? Did that old partition wall survive the shock, that made earth + quake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple + vail? And did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition + from its frowning battlements on all without? No! The God of OUR + salvation lives. "Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people." + <em>One</em> shout shall swell from <em>all</em> the ransomed, "Thou hast redeemed us + unto God by thy blood out of EVERY kindred, and tongue, and people, + and nation." To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the + + servants from the <em>Gentiles</em>, makes Christianity <em>Judaism</em>. + It not only + eclipses the glory of the Gospel, but strikes out the sun. The refusal to + release servants at the sound of the jubilee trumpet, falsified and disannulled + a grand leading type of the atonement, and thus libelled the doctrine + of Christ's redemption. + + </p> + <p> + Finally, even if <em>forever</em> did refer to the length of <i>individual</i> service, + we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee. The + same word is used to define the length of time for which those <em>Jewish</em> + servants were held, who refused to go out in the <em>seventh</em> year. And all + admit that their term of service did not go beyond the jubilee. Ex. xxi. + 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17. + + </p> + <p> + The 23d verse of the same chapter is quoted to prove that "<em>forever</em>" + in the 46th verse, extends beyond the jubilee. "<em>The land shall not be + sold</em> FOREVER, <em>for the land is mine</em>"—as it would hardly be used in different + senses in the same general connection. In reply, we repeat that + <i>forever</i> respects the duration of the <i>general arrangement</i>, and not that + of <i>individual service</i>. Consequently, it is not affected by the jubilee; so + the objection does not touch the argument. But it may not be amiss + to show that it is equally harmless against any other argument drawn + from the use of forever in the 46th verse,—for the word there used, is + <i>Olam</i>, meaning <i>throughout the period</i>, whatever that may be. Whereas + in the 23d verse, it is <i>Tsemithuth</i>, meaning <i>cutting off</i>, or <i>to be cut + off</i>. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_inherit"></a></h3> + <p> + III. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION."—"<em>Ye shall take them as an</em> + INHERITANCE <em>for your children after you to inherit them for a possession</em>." + This refers to the <em>nations</em>, and not to the <em>individual</em> servants, procured + from these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not + be held as a <em>property</em>-possession, and inheritance; that they became + servants of their <em>own accord</em>, and were paid wages; that they were released + by law from their regular labor nearly <em>half the days in each + year</em>, and thoroughly <em>instructed</em>; that the servants were <em>protected</em> in all + their personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their masters, + &c. Now, truly, all remaining, after these ample reservations, would + be small temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre. What a + profitable "possession" and "inheritance!" What if our American + slaves were all placed in <em>just such a condition</em>! Alas, for that soft, melodious + circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!" Truly, + emphasis is cadence, and euphony and irony have met together! + + </p> + <p> + What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective + of connection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of + + meaning by other passages—and all to eke out such a sense as accords + with existing usages and sanctifies them, thus making God pander for + their lusts. Little matter whether the meaning of the word be primary + or secondary, literal or figurative, <em>provided</em> it sustains their practices. + + </p> + <p> + But let us inquire whether the words rendered "inherit" and "inheritance," + when used in the Old Testament, necessarily point out the + things inherited and possessed as <em>articles of property</em>. <i>Nahal</i> and <i>Nahala</i>—<i>inherit</i> + and <i>inheritance</i>. See 2 Chronicles x. 16. "The people + answered the king and said, What portion have we in David, and we + have none <em>inheritance</em> in the son of Jesse." Did they mean gravely to + disclaim the holding of their king as an article of <em>property?</em> Psalms + cxxvii. 3—"Lo, children are an <i>heritage</i> (inheritance) of the Lord." + Exodus xxxiv. 9—"Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for + thine <i>inheritance</i>." When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them + as his children, does he make them <em>articles of property?</em> Are forgiveness, + and chattel-making, synonymes? Psalms cxix. 111—"Thy testimonies + have I taken as a <i>heritage</i> (inheritance) forever." Ezekiel + xliv. 27, 28—"And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto + the inner court to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin-offering, + saith the Lord God. And it shall be unto them for an <i>inheritance</i>; <em>I</em> + am their <i>inheritance</i>." Psalms ii. 8—"Ask of me, and I will give thee the + heathen for thine <i>inheritance</i>." Psalms xciv. 14—"For the Lord will + not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his <i>inheritance</i>." See + also Deuteronomy iv. 20; Joshua xiii. 33; Chronicles x. 16; Psalms + lxxxii. 8, and lxxviii. 62, 71; Proverbs xiv. 8. + + </p> + <p> + The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY—"<i>possession</i>," + has been already discussed—(See <a href="#E4_prop" class="ref">p. 36</a>)—we need add in this place + but a word. <i>Ahusa</i> rendered "<i>possession</i>." Genesis xlii. 11—"And + Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a <i>possession</i> + in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as + Pharaoh had commanded." + + </p> + <p> + In what sense was the land of Goshen the <i>possession</i> of the Israelites? + Answer, In the sense of, <i>having it to live in</i>. In what sense were the + Israelites to <em>possess</em> these nations, and <em>take them</em> as an <em>inheritance for + their children?</em> We answer, They possessed them as <em>a permanent + source of supply for domestic or household servants. And this relation + to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standing regulation—a + national usage respecting them, having the certainty and regularity of a + descent by inheritance</em>. The sense of the whole regulation may be + given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, both male and female, which + + thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of <em>them</em> + shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of + the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of <em>them</em> shall ye get, and of + their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and <em>they</em> + shall be your permanent resource," (for household servants.) "And ye + shall take them as a <em>perpetual</em> provision for your children after you, to + hold as a <em>constant source of supply</em>. ALWAYS <em>of them</em> shall ye serve + yourselves." + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_Israelite"></a></h3> + <p> + OBJECTION IV. "<em>If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, + and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a</em> BOND-SERVANT, + <em>but as an</em> HIRED-SERVANT, <em>and as a sojourner shall he be with + thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee</em>." Lev. xxv. 39, 40. + + </p> + <p> + From the fact that only <em>one</em> class of the servants is called <i>hired</i>, it is + sagely inferred that servants of the <em>other</em> class were <em>not paid</em> for their + labor. That is, that while God thundered anathemas against those who + "used their neighbor's service <em>without wages</em>," he granted a special + indulgence to his chosen people to seize persons, force them to work, + and rob them of earnings, provided always, in selecting their victims, + they spared "the gentlemen of property and standing," and pounced + only upon the <em>strangers</em> and the <em>common</em> people. The inference that + "<i>hired</i>" is synonimous with <i>paid</i>, and that those servants not <em>called</em> + "hired" were <em>not paid</em> for their labor, is a <em>mere assumption</em>. + + </p> + <p> + The meaning of the English verb <i>to hire</i>, is, as every one knows, to + procure for a temporary use at a curtain price—to engage a person to + <em>temporary</em> service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew + word "<i>Saukar</i>." <em>Temporary</em> service, and generally for a <em>specific</em> object, + is inseparable from its meaning. It is never used when the procurement + of <em>permanent</em> service, for a long period, is spoken of. Now, + we ask, would <em>permanent</em> servants, those who constituted an integral + and stationary part of the family, have been designated by the same + term that marks <em>temporary</em> servants? The every-day distinctions made + on this subject, are as familiar as table-talk. In many families, the domestics + perform only such labor, as every day brings along with it—the + <em>regular</em> work. Whatever is <em>occasional</em> merely, as the washing of a + family, is done by persons <em>hired expressly for the purpose</em>. In such + families, the familiar distinction between the two classes, is "servants," + or "domestics," and "hired help," (not <em>paid</em> help.) <em>Both</em> classes are + <em>paid</em>. One is permanent, the other occasional and temporary, and + therefore in this case called "<em>hired</em>." To suppose a servant robbed + of his earnings, because when spoken of, he is not called a <em>hired</em> servant, + + is profound induction! If I employ a man at twelve dollars a + month to work my farm, he is my <em>"hired"</em> man, but if, instead of giving + him so much a month, I <em>give him such a portion of the crop</em>, or in other + words, if he works my farm <i>"on shares,"</i> he is no longer my <em>hired</em> + man. Every farmer knows that <em>that</em> designation is not applied to him. + Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at the same times, and + with the same teams and tools; and does the same amount of work in + the year, and perhaps clears twenty dollars a month, instead of the + twelve, paid him while he was my <em>hired</em> laborer. Now, as the technic + <i>"hired"</i> is no longer used to designate him, and as he still labors on my + farm, suppose my neighbors gather in conclave, and from such ample + premises sagely infer, that since he is no longer my <em>"hired"</em> laborer, I + <em>rob</em> him of his earnings, and with all the gravity of owls, they record + their decision, and adjourn to hoot it abroad. My neighbors are deep + divers!—like some theological professors, they not only go to the bottom, + but come up covered with the tokens. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_diffserv"></a></h3> + <p> + A variety of particulars are recorded in the Bible, distinguishing <i>hired</i> + from <em>bought</em> servants. (1.) Hired servants were paid daily at the close + of their work. Lev. xix 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Job. vii. 2; Matt. xx. + 8. <i>"Bought"</i> servants were paid in advance, (a reason for their being + called, <i>bought</i>,) and those that went out at the seventh year received a + <i>gratuity</i> at the close of their period of service. Deut. xv. 12-13. (2.) + The hired servant was paid <em>in money</em>, the bought servant received his + <i>gratuity</i>, at least, in grain, cattle, and the product of the vintage. Deut. + xiv. 17. (3.) The <i>hired</i> servant <em>lived by himself</em>, in his own family. + The <i>bought</i> servant was a part of his master's family. (4.) The <i>hired</i> + servant supported his family out of his wages; the <i>bought</i> servant and + his family, were supported by the master <em>besides</em> his wages. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_bgtsup"></a></h3> + <p> + A careful investigation of the condition of "<i>hired</i>" and of "<i>bought</i>" + servants, shows that the latter were, <em>as a class, superior to the former</em>—were + more trust-worthy, had greater privileges, and occupied in every + respect (<em>other</em> things being equal) a higher station in society. (1.) + <em>They were intimately incorporated with the family of the master</em>. They + were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which hired + servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Exod. xii. 43, 45. (2) <em>Their + interests were far more identified with the general interests of their masters' + family.</em> Bought servants were often actually, or prospectively, + heirs of their master's estate. Witness the case of Eliezer, of Ziba, of + the sons of Bilhah, and Zilpah, and others. When there were no sons + to inherit the estate, or when, by unworthiness, they had forfeited their + + title, bought servants were made heirs. Proverbs xvii. 2. We find + traces of this usage in the New Testament. "But when the husbandmen + saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, this is the <em>heir</em>, + come let us kill him, <em>that the inheritance may be ours</em>." Luke xx. 14; + also Mark xii. 7. In no instance on Bible record, does a <i>hired</i> servant + inherit his master's estate. (3.) <em>Marriages took place between servants + and their master's daughters</em>. "Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters: + and Sheshan had a <em>servant</em>, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. + And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant to wife." 1 Chron. + ii. 34, 35. There is no instance of a <em>hired</em> servant forming such + an alliance. + + </p> + <p> + (4.) <em>Bought servants and their descendants seem to have been regarded + with the same affection and respect as the other members of the + family [A]</em> + The treatment of Eliezer, and the other servants in the family of + Abraham, Gen. chap. 25—the intercourse between Gideon and his servant + Phurah, Judges vii. 10, 11. and Saul and his servant, in their interview + with Samuel, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22; and Jonathan and his servant, + 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and his servant Gehazi, are illustrations. + No such tie seems to have existed between <i>hired</i> servants and their masters. + Their untrustworthiness seems to have been proverbial. See + John ix. 12, 13. + + </p> + <p> + None but the <em>lowest class</em> seem to have engaged as hired servants. + No instance occurs in which they are assigned to business demanding + much knowledge or skill. Various passages show the low repute and + trifling character of the class from which they were hired. Judges ix. + 4; 1 Sam. ii. 5. + + </p> + <p> + The superior condition and privileges of bought servants, are manifested + in the high trusts confided to them, and in the dignity and authority + with which they were clothed in their master's household. But in no + instance is a <em>hired</em> servant thus distinguished. In some cases, the + <em>bought</em> servant is manifestly the master's representative in the family—with + plenipotentiary powers over adult children, even negotiating marriage + for them. Abraham besought Eliezer his servant, to take a + solemn oath, that HE would not take a wife for Isaac of the daughters + of the Canaanites, but from Abraham's kindred. The servant + + went accordingly, and <em>himself</em> selected the individual. Servants + also exercised discretionary power in the management of their master's + estate, "And the servant took ten camels, of the camels of his master, + <em>for all the goods of his master were under his hand</em>." Gen. xxiv. 10. The reason assigned for taking them, is not that such was Abraham's direction, + but that the servant had discretionary control. Servants had also + discretionary power in the <em>disposal of property</em>. See Gen. xxiv. 22, + 23, 53. The condition of Ziba in the house of Mephiboseth, is a case + in point. So is Prov. xvii. 2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to + be found in the New Testament, Math. xxiv. 45; Luke xii. 42, 44. + So in the parable of the talents; the master seems to have set up each + of his servants in trade with considerable capital. One of them could + not have had less than eight thousand dollars. The parable of the unjust + steward is another illustration. Luke xvi. 4, 8. He evidently was + entrusted with large <em>discretionary</em> power, was "accused of wasting his master's goods." and manifestly regulated with his master's debtors, the + <em>terms</em> of settlement. Such trusts were never reposed in <em>hired</em> + servants. + + </p> + <p> + The inferior condition of <em>hired</em> servants, is illustrated in the parable + of the prodigal son. When the prodigal, perishing with hunger among + the swine and husks, came to himself, his proud heart broke; "I will + arise," he cried, "and go to my father." And then to assure his father + of the depth of his humility, resolved to add imploringly, "Make me as + one of thy <em>hired</em> servants." It need not be remarked, that if <em>hired</em> servants were the <em>superior</em> class; to apply for the situation, and press the + suit, savored little of that sense of unworthiness that seeks the dust with + hidden face, and cries "unclean." Unhumbled nature <em>climbs</em>; or if it + falls, clings fast, where first it may. Humility sinks of its own weight, + and in the lowest deep, digs lower. The design of the parable was to + illustrate on the one hand, the joy of God, as he beholds afar off, the + returning sinner "seeking an injured father's face" who runs to clasp + and bless him with an unchiding welcome; and on the other, the contrition + of the penitent, turning homeward with tears, from his wanderings, + his stricken spirit breaking with its ill-desert, he sobs aloud, + "The lowest place, <em>the lowest place</em>, I can abide no other." Or in those + inimitable words, "<em>Father, I have sinned against Heaven, and in thy + sight, and no more worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of + thy</em> HIRED <em>servants</em>." The supposition that <em>hired</em> servants were the <em>highest</em> class, takes from the parable an element of winning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student of the Bible, + that <em>one</em> + class of servants, was on terms of equality with the children and other + + members of the family. (Hence the force of Paul's declaration, Gal. + iv. 1, <em>"Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child,</em> DIFFERETH + NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, <em>though he be lord of all."</em>) If this + were the <em>hired</em> class, the prodigal was a sorry specimen of humility. + Would our Lord have put such language, into the lips of one held up + by himself, as a model of gospel humility, to illustrate its lowliness, its + conscious destitution of all merit, and deep sense of all ill desert? If + this is <em>humility</em>, put it on stilts, and set it a strutting, while pride takes + lessons, and blunders in apeing it. + + </p> + <p> + Here let it be observed, that both Israelites and Strangers, belonged + indiscriminately to <em>each</em> class of the servants, the <i>bought</i> and the <i>hired</i>. That those in the former class, whether Jews or Strangers, were in + higher estimation, and rose to honors and authority in the family circle, + which were not conferred on <em>hired</em> servants, has been already shown. It + should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges, merely + <i>political</i> and <i>national</i>, the hired servants from the <em>Israelites</em>, were more favored than either the hired, or the bought servants from the <i>Strangers</i>. No one from the Strangers, however wealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the highest office, nor could he own the soil. + This last disability + seems to have been one reason for the different periods of service + required of the two classes of bought servants—the Israelites and the + Strangers. The Israelite was to serve six years—the Stranger until + the jubilee<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN23"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN23"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN23"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN23">A</a>: Both classes may with propriety be + called <i>permanent</i> servants; even the bought Israelite, when his six-years' service is contrasted with the brief term + of the hired servant. + </p> + <p> + As the Strangers could not own the soil, nor even houses, except within + walled towns, most of them would choose to attach themselves permanently + to Israelitish families. Those Strangers who were wealthy, + or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants themselves, + would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for the + Strangers to become servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons + of their own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers + would naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants. See Levit. + xxv. 47. In a word, such was the political condition of the Strangers, + the Jewish polity furnished a strong motive to them, to become servants, + thus incorporating themselves with the nation, and procuring those + social and religious privileges already enumerated, and for their children + in the second generation, a permanent inheritance. (This last + was a regulation of later date. Ezekiel xlvii. 21-23.) Indeed, the + + structure of the whole Mosaic polity, was a virtual bounty offered to + those who would become permanent servants, and merge in the Jewish + system their distinct nationality. None but the monied aristocracy + among them, would be likely to decline such offers. + + </p> + <p> + For various reasons, this class, (the servants bought from the Strangers,) would prefer a <em>long</em> service. They would thus more effectually + become absorbed into the national circulation, and identify their interests + with those in whose gift were all things desirable for themselves, + and brighter prospects for their children. On the other hand, + the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of land being a sort + of sacred possession, to hold it free of incumbrance, was, with every + Israelite, a delicate point, both of family honor and personal character. + 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the <em>possession</em> of one's inheritance, + <em>after</em> the division of the paternal domain, or to be restrained from its + <em>control</em>, after having acceded to it, was a burden grievous to be borne. + To mitigate, as much as possible, such a calamity, the law, instead of + requiring the Israelite to continue a servant until the jubilee, released + him at the end six years<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN24"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN24"></a>, as, during that time—if, of the first class—the + partition of the patrimonial land might have taken place; or, if of + the second, enough money might have been earned to disencumber + his estate, and thus he might assume his station as a lord of the soil. If + these contingencies had not occurred, then, at the end of another six + years, the opportunity was again offered, and in the same manner until + the jubilee. So while strong motives urged the Israelite, to discontinue + his service as soon as the exigency had passed, which induced him to + become a servant, every consideration impelled the <i>Stranger</i> to <em>prolong</em> his term of service; and the same kindness which dictated the law of six years' service for the Israelite, assigned as the + general rule, a much + longer period to the Gentile servant, who, instead of being tempted to a + brief service, had every inducement to protract the term. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN24"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN24">A</a>: Another reason for + protracting the service until the seventh year, seems to have been, its + coincidence with other arrangements, and provisions, inseparable from the + Jewish economy. That period was a favorite one in the Mosaic system. Its + pecuniary responsibilities, social relations and general internal structure, + if not <i>graduated</i> upon a septennial scale, were + variously modified by the lapse of the period. Another reason doubtless was, + that as those Israelites who became servants through poverty, would not sell + themselves, except as a last resort when other expedients to recruit their + finances had failed—(See Lev. xxv. 35)—their <em>becoming + servants</em> proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the + labor of <em>a course of years</em> fully to reinstate + them. + </p> + <p> + It is important to a clear understanding of the whole subject, to keep + in mind that adult Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporary + expedient to relieve themselves from embarrassment, and ceased to + + be such when that object was effected. The poverty that forced them + to it was a calamity, and their service was either a means of relief, or a + measure of prevention. It was not pursued as a <em>permanent business</em>, + but resorted to on emergencies—a sort of episode in the main scope of + their lives. Whereas with the Strangers, it was a <em>permanent employment</em>, pursued not merely as a <em>means</em> of bettering their own condition, + and prospectively that of their posterity, but also, as an <em>end</em> for its + own sake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not + otherwise attainable. + + </p> + <p> + We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, + are called by way of distinction, <em>the</em> servants, (not <em>bondmen</em>, as + our translators have it.) (1.) They followed it as a <em>permanent business</em>. + (2.) Their term of service was <em>much longer</em> than that of the other + class. (3.) As a class, they doubtless greatly outnumbered the Israelitish + servants. (4.) All the Strangers that dwelt in the land, were <i>tributaries</i> + to the Israelites—required to pay an annual tribute to the government, + either in money, or in public service, which was called a "<i>tribute + of bond-service</i>;" in other words, all the Strangers were <i>national + servants</i>, to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word which is used to designate + <i>individual</i> servants, equally designates <i>national</i> servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14. 2 Chron. viii. 7-9. Deut. xx. 11. + 2 Sam. x. 19. 1 Kings ix. 21, 22. 1 Kings iv. 21. Gen. xxvii. 29. + The same word is applied to the Israelites, when they paid tribute to + other nations. See 2 Kings xvii. 3. Judges iii. 8, 14. Gen. xlix. 15. + Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought servants, + claims notice. It was in the <em>kinds</em> of service assigned to each class. + The servants from the Strangers, were properly the <i>domestics</i>, or household + servants, employed in all family work, in offices of personal attendance, + and in such mechanical labor, as was constantly required in every + family, by increasing wants, and needed repairs. On the other hand, + the Jewish bought servants seem to have been almost exclusively <i>agricultural</i>. Besides being better fitted for this by previous habits—agriculture, + and the tending of cattle, were regarded by the Israelites as + the most honorable of all occupations; kings engaged in them. After + Saul was elected king, and escorted to Gibeah, the next report of + him is, "<em>And behold Saul came after the herd out of the field</em>."—1 + Sam. xi. 7. + + </p> + <p> + Elisha "was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen" when Elijah threw + his mantle upon him. 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah "loved husbandry." + 2 Chron. xxvi. 10. Gideon, the deliverer of Israel, <em>was + + "threshing wheat</em> by the wine press" when called to lead the host + against the Midianites. Judges vi. 11. The superior honorableness of + agriculture, is shown by the fact, that it was <em>protected and supported by + the fundamental law</em> of the theocracy—God thus indicating it as the + chief prop of the government, and putting upon it peculiar honor. An + inheritance of land seems to have filled out an Israelite's idea of worldly + furnishment. They were like permanent fixtures on their soil, so did they + cling to it. To be agriculturalists on their own inheritances, was, in + their notions, the basis of family consequence, and the grand claim to + honorable estimation. Agriculture being pre-eminently a <em>Jewish</em> employment, + to assign a native Israelite to <em>other</em> employments as a <em>business</em>, + was to break up his habits, do violence to cherished predilections, and + put him to a kind of labor in which he had no skill, and which he + deemed degrading. In short, it was, in the earlier ages of the Mosaic + system, practically to <i>unjew</i> him, a hardship and rigor grievous to be + borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between the descendants of + Abraham and the Strangers—a distinction vital to the system, and + gloried in by every Jew. + + </p> + <p><em>To guard this and another fundamental distinction</em>, God instituted the + regulation contained in Leviticus xxv. 39, which stands at the head of + this branch of our inquiry, "<em>If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be + waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a + bond-servant.</em>" In other words, thou shalt not put him to <em>servants' + work</em>—to the <em>business</em>, and into the <em>condition</em> of <em>domestics</em>. + + </p> + <p> + In the Persian version it is translated thus, "Thou shalt not assign + to him the work of <em>servitude</em>," (or <em>menial</em> labor.) In the Septuagint + thus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a <em>domestic or household + servant</em>." In the Syriac thus, "Thou shalt not employ him after + the manner of servants." In the Samaritan thus, "Thou shalt not require + him to serve in the service of a servant." In the Targum of Onkelos + thus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a household + servant." In the Targum of Jonathan thus, "Thou shalt not cause + him to serve according to the usages of the servitude of + servants<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN25"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN25"></a>." In fine, "thou shalt not compel him to serve as a + bond-servant," means, + <em>thou shalt not assign him to the same grade, nor put him to the same services, + with permanent domestics.</em></p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN25"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN25">A</a>: Jarchi's comment on "Thou shalt not compel + him to serve as a bond-servant" is, "the Hebrew servant is not to be required + to do any thing which is accounted degrading—such as all offices of + personal attendance, as loosing his master's shoe latchet, bringing him water + to wash his feet and hands, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying + things to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with his master as + a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or other labor, until his + legal release." + </p> + <p> + We pass to the remainder of the regulation in the 40th verse:— + + </p> + <p> + "<em>But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with thee</em>." + Hired servants were not incorporated into the families of their masters; + they still retained their own family organization, without the surrender + of any domestic privilege, honor, or authority; and this, even though + they resided under the same roof with their master. While bought-servants + were associated with their master's families at meals, at the + Passover, and at other family festivals, hired servants and sojourners + were not. Exodus xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11. Not being merged + in the family of his master, the hired servant was not subject to his authority, + (except in directions about his labor) in any such sense as the + master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence the only form of + oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures as practicable to + masters, is that of <em>keeping back their wages</em>. + + </p> + <p> + To have taken away these privileges in the case stated in the passage + under consideration, would have been preeminent <em>rigor</em>; for the case + described, is not that of a servant born in the house of a master, nor + that of a minor, whose unexpired minority had been sold by the father, + neither was it the case of an Israelite, who though of age, had not yet + acceded to his inheritance; nor, finally, was it that of one who had received + the <i>assignment</i> of his inheritance, but was, as a servant, working + off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its possession and + control<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN26"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN26"></a>. But it was that + of <em>the head of a family</em>, who had lived independently + on his own inheritance, and long known better days, now reduced + to poverty, forced to relinquish the loved inheritance of his fathers, with + the competence and respectful consideration its possession secured to + him, and to be indebted to a neighbor for shelter, sustenance, and employment, + both for himself and his family. Surely so sad a reverse, + might well claim sympathy; but there remaineth to him one consolation, + and it cheers him in the house of his pilgrimage. He is an + <em>Israelite—Abraham is his father</em>, and now in his calamity he clings closer + than ever, to the distinction conferred by the immunities of his birthright. + To rob him of this, were "the unkindest cut of all." To have + assigned him to a <em>grade</em> of service filled only by those whose permanent + business was <em>serving</em>, would have been to <em>rule over him with peculiar + rigor</em>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN26"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN26">A</a>: These two latter classes are evidently + referred to in Exod. xxi. 1-6, and Deut. xv. 12 + </p> + <p> + Finally, the former part of the regulation, "Thou shalt not compel + him to serve as a bond-servant," or more literally, <em>thou shall not serve + thyself with him, with the service of a servant</em>, guaranties his political + privileges, and secures to him a kind and grade of service, comporting + with his character and relations as a son of Israel. And the remainder + of the verse, "But as a <em>hired</em> servant, and as a sojourner shall he be + with thee," continues and secures to him his separate family organization, + the respect and authority due to his head, and the general consideration + in society resulting from such a station. Though this individual + was a Jewish <i>bought</i> servant, the case is peculiar, and forms an exception + to the general class of Jewish bought servants. Being already + in possession of his inheritance, and the head of a household, the + law so arranged his relations, as a servant, as to <em>alleviate</em> as much as + possible the calamity which had reduced him from independence and authority, + to penury and subjection. + + </p> + <p> + Having gone so much into detail on this point, comment on the command + which concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, would be superfluous. + "<em>Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy + God</em>." As if it had been said, "In your administration you shall not + disregard those differences in previous habits, station, authority, and national + and political privileges, upon which this regulation is based; for + to exercise authority over this class of servants, <em>irrespective</em> of these + distinctions, and annihilating them, is <em>to</em><em>rule with rigor</em>." The same + command is repeated in the forty-sixth verse, and applied to the distinction + between the servants of Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction, + and forbids the overlooking of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, so vital to + an Israelite as to make the violation of them, <em>rigorous</em> in the extreme; + while to the servants from the Strangers, whose previous habits and associations + differed so widely from those of the Israelite, these same + things would be deemed slight disabilities. + + </p> + <p> + It may be remarked here, that the political and other disabilities of + the Strangers, which were the distinctions growing out of a different + national descent, and important to the preservation of national characteristics, + and to the purity of national worship, do not seem to have effected + at all the <em>social</em> estimation, in which this class of servants was + held. They were regarded according to their character and worth as + <em>persons</em>, irrespective of their foreign origin, employments, and political + condition. + + </p> + <p> + The common construction put upon the expression, "<em>rule with rigor</em>," + and an inference drawn from it, have an air so oracular, as quite to + + overcharge risibles of ordinary calibre, if such an effect were not forestalled + by its impiety. It is interpreted to mean, "you shall not make + him an article of property, you shall not force him to work, and rob him + of his earnings, you shall not make him a chattel, and strip him of legal + protection." So much for the interpretation. The inference is + like unto it, viz. Since the command forbade such outrages upon the + <em>Israelites, it permitted and commissioned</em> the infliction of them upon the + <i>Strangers</i>. Such impious and shallow smattering, captivates two + classes of minds, the one by its flippancy, the other by its blasphemy, + and both, by the strong scent of its unbridled license. What boots it to + reason against such rampant affinities! + + </p> + <p> + In Exodus, chap. i. 13, 14, it is said that the Egyptians "made + the children of Israel to <em>serve</em> with rigor," "and all their <em>service</em> wherein + they made them <em>serve</em>, was with rigor." The rigor here spoken of, is + affirmed of the <em>amount of labor</em> extorted from them, and the <em>mode</em> of the + exaction. This form of expression, "<em>serve with rigor</em>," is never applied + to the service of servants either under the Patriarchal, or the Mosaic + systems. Nor is any other form of expression ever used, either + equivalent to it, or at all similar. The phrase, "thou shalt not RULE + over him with rigor," used in Leviticus xxv. 43, 46, does not prohibit + unreasonable exactions of labor, nor inflictions of personal cruelty. + <em>Such were provided against otherwise</em>. But it forbids, confounding + the distinctions between a Jew and a Stranger, by assigning the former + to the same grade of service, for the same term of time, and under the + same national and political disabilities as the latter. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_sumdiffserv"></a></h3> + <p> + We are now prepared to survey at a glance, the general condition of + the different classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each + class. I. In the possession of <em>all fundamental rights, all classes of + servants were on an absolute equality</em>, all were <em>equally protected</em> by law + in their persons, character, property and social relations. All were + <em>voluntary</em>, all were <em>compensated</em> for their labor. All were released from + their regular labor nearly <em>one half of the days in each year</em>, all were + furnished with stated <em>instruction</em>; none in either class were in any sense + articles of <em>property</em>, all were regarded as <em>men</em>, with the rights, interests, + hopes, and destinies of <em>men</em>. In these respects the circumstances of <em>all</em> + classes of servants among the Israelites, were not only similar but <em>identical</em>, + and so far forth, they formed but ONE CLASS. + + </p> + <p> + II. DIFFERENT CLASSES OF SERVANTS. + + </p> + <p> + 1. <i>Hired Servants</i>.—This class consisted both of Israelites and + Strangers. Their employments were different. The <i>Israelite</i>, was an + + agricultural servant. The Stranger was a <i>domestic</i> and <i>personal</i> servant, + and in some instances <i>mechanical</i>; both were <i>occasional</i>, procured + <em>temporally</em> to serve an emergency. Both lived in their own families, + their wages were <em>money</em>, and they were paid when their work was + done. As a <em>class of servants</em>, the hired were less loved, trusted, honored + and promoted than any other. + + </p> + <p> + 2. <em>Bought Servants, (including those "born in the house.")</em>—This + class also, was composed both of Israelites and Strangers, the same general + difference obtaining in their kinds of employment as was noticed + before. Both were paid in advance<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN27"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN27"></a>, and neither was + temporary. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN27"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN27">A</a>: The payment + <em>in advance</em>, doubtless lessened considerably the price of the + purchase; the servant thus having the use of the money from the beginning, and + the master assuming all the risks of life, and health for labor; at the + expiration of the six years' contract, the master having + experienced no loss from the risk incurred at the making of it, was obliged + by law to release the servant with a liberal gratuity. The reason assigned + for this is, "he hath been worth a double hired servant unto thee in serving + thee six years," as if it had been said, he has now served out his time, and + as you have experienced no loss from the risks of life, and ability + to labor which you incurred in the purchase, and which lessened the + price, and as, by being your permanent servant for six years, he has saved + you all the time and trouble of looking up and hiring laborers on emergencies, + therefore, "thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c. + </p> + <p> + The Israelitish servant, in most instances, was released after six years. + (The <i>freeholder</i> continued until the jubilee.) The Stranger, was a <i>permanent</i> + servant, continuing until the jubilee. Besides these distinctions + between Jewish and Gentile bought servants, a marked distinction obtained + between different classes of Jewish bought servants. Ordinarily, + during their term of service, they were merged in their master's family, + and, like the wife and children of the master, subject to his authority; + (and of course, like them, protected by law from its abuse.) But <em>one</em> + class of the Jewish bought servants was a marked exception. The <i>freeholder</i>, obliged by poverty to leave his possession, and sell himself + as a servant, did not thereby affect his family relations, or authority, + nor subject himself as an inferior to the control of his master, though dependent + upon him for employment. In this respect, his condition differed + from that of the main body of Jewish bought servants, which + seems to have consisted of those, who had not yet come into possession + of their inheritance, or of those who were dislodging from it an incumbrance. + + </p> + <p> + Having dwelt so much at length on this part of the subject, the reader's + patience may well be spared further details. We close it with a suggestion + or two, which may serve as a solvent of some minor difficulties, if + such remain. + + </p> + <p> + I. It should be kept in mind, that <em>both</em> classes of servants, the Israelite + and the Stranger, not only enjoyed <em>equal natural and religious rights</em>, + but <em>all the civil and political privileges</em> enjoyed by those of their own people, + who were <em>not</em> servants. If Israelites, all rights belonging to Israelites + were theirs. If from the Strangers, the same political privileges enjoyed + by those wealthy Strangers, who bought and held <i>Israelitish</i> servants, + <em>were theirs</em>. They also shared <em>in common with them</em>, the political disabilities + which appertained to <em>all</em> Strangers, whether the servants of Jewish + masters, or the masters of Jewish servants. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_heathen"></a></h3> + <p> + II. The disabilities of the servants from the Strangers, were exclusively + <i>political</i> and <i>national</i>. + + </p> + <p> + 1. They, in common with all Strangers, <em>could not own the soil</em>. + + </p> + <p> + 2. They were <em>ineligible to civil offices</em>. + + </p> + <p> + 3. They were assigned to <em>employments</em> less honorable than those in + which Israelitish servants engaged; agriculture being regarded as fundamental + to the prosperity and even to the existence of the state, other employments + were in far less repute, and deemed <i>unjewish</i>. + + </p> + <p> + Finally, the condition of the Strangers, whether servants or masters, + was, as it respected political privileges, much like that of unnaturalized + foreigners in the United States; no matter how great their wealth or intelligence, + or moral principle, or love for our institutions, they can neither + go to the ballot-box, nor own the soil, nor be eligible to office. Let a + native American, who has always enjoyed these privileges, be suddenly + bereft of them, and loaded with the disabilities of an alien, and what to + the foreigner would be a light matter, to <em>him</em>, would be the severity of + <em>rigor</em>. + + </p> + <p> + The recent condition of the Jews and Catholics in England, is a still + better illustration of the political condition of the Strangers in Israel. + Rothschild, the late English banker, though the richest private citizen in + the world, and perhaps master of scores of English servants, who sued + for the smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the government, + inferior to the veriest scavenger among them. Suppose an Englishman, + of the Established Church, were by law deprived of power to + own the soil, made ineligible to office, and deprived unconditionally of + the electoral franchise, would Englishmen think it a misapplication of + language, if it were said, "The government rules over that man with + rigor?" And yet his life, limbs, property, reputation, conscience, all his + social relations, the disposal of his time, the right of locomotion at pleasure, + and of natural liberty in all respects, are just as much protected by + law as the Lord Chancellor's. The same was true of all "the strangers + + within the gates" among the Israelites: Whether these Strangers + were the servants of Israelitish masters, or the masters of Israelitish servants, + whether sojourners, or bought servants, or born in the house, or + hired, or neither—<em>all were protected equally with the descendants of + Abraham.</em></p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_Ex21_2"></a></h3> + <p> + Finally—As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, made + up of innumerable fractional ones, each rife with meaning in doctrine + and duty; the practical power of the whole, depended upon the exact + observance of those distinctions and relations which constituted its significancy. + Hence, the care everywhere shown to preserve inviolate the + distinction between a <i>descendant of Abraham</i> and a <i>Stranger</i>, even when + the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone through the initiatory ordinances, + entered the congregation, and become incorporated with the Israelites + by family alliance. The regulation laid down in Exodus xxi. 2-6, is + an illustration, <em>"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years shall he + serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he + came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, + then, his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him + a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters; the wife and her + children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And + if the servant should plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my + children, I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto + the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; + and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall + serve him forever."</em> In this case, the Israelitish servant, whose term + expired in six years, married one of his master's <i>permanent female domestics</i>; + but the fact of her marriage, did not release her master from + <em>his</em> part of the contract for her whole term of service, nor absolve him + from his legal obligation to support and educate her children. Nor could + it do away that distinction, which marked her national descent by a specific + <i>grade</i> and <i>term</i> of service. Her marriage did not impair her obligation to fulfil <em>her</em> part of the contract. Her relations as a permanent + domestic grew out of a distinction guarded with great care throughout + the Mosaic system. To permit this to be rendered void, would have + been to divide the system against itself. This God would not tolerate. + Nor, on the other hand, would he permit the master, to throw off the responsibility + of instructing her children, nor the care and expense of their + helpless infancy and rearing. He was bound to support and educate + them, and all her children born afterwards during her term of service. + The whole arrangement beautifully illustrates that wise and tender regard + + for the interests of all the parties concerned, which arrays the Mosaic + system in robes of glory, and causes it to shine as the sun in the + kingdom of our Father. By this law, the children had secured to them + a mother's tender care. If the husband loved his wife and children, he + could compel his master to keep him, whether he had any occasion for + his services or not, and with such remuneration as was provided by the + statute. If he did not love them, to be rid of him was a blessing; and in + that case, the regulation would prove an act for the relief of an afflicted + family. It is not by any means to be inferred, that the release of the servant + from his service in the seventh year, either absolved him from the + obligations of marriage, or shut him out from the society of his family. + He could doubtless procure a service at no great distance from them, + and might often do it, to get higher wages, or a kind of employment better + suited to his taste and skill, or because his master might not have + sufficient work to occupy him. Whether he lived near his family, or + at a considerable distance, the great number of days on which the law + released servants from regular labor, would enable him to spend much + more time with them than can be spent by most of the agents of our benevolent + societies with <em>their</em> families, or by many merchants, editors, + artists, &c., whose daily business is in New York, while their families + reside from ten to one hundred miles in the country. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4_uncext"></a></h3> + <p> + We conclude this Inquiry by touching briefly upon an objection, + which, though not formally stated, has been already set aside by the + whole tenor of the foregoing argument. It is this,— + + </p> + <p><em>"The slavery of the Canaanites by the Israelites, was appointed by + God as a commutation of the punishment of death denounced against + them for their sins."</em>—If the absurdity of a sentence consigning persons + to <em>death</em>, and at the same time to perpetual <em>slavery</em>, did not sufficiently + laugh in its own face, it would be small self-denial, in a case so tempting, + to make up the deficiency by a general contribution. For, <em>be it remembered</em>, + the Mosaic law was given, while Israel was <em>in the wilderness</em>, and + only <em>one</em> statute was ever given respecting <em>the disposition to be made of + the inhabitants of the land.</em> If the sentence of death was first pronounced + against them, and afterwards <em>commuted</em>, when? where? by whom? + and in what terms was the commutation? And where is it recorded? + Grant, for argument's sake, that all the Canaanites were sentenced to + unconditional extermination; as there was no reversal of the sentence, + how can a right to <em>enslave</em> them, be drawn from such premises? The + punishment of death is one of the highest recognitions of man's moral + nature possible. It proclaims him <em>man</em>—intelligent accountable, guilty + <em>man,</em> deserving death for having done his utmost to cheapen human life, + and make it worthless, when the proof of its priceless value, lives in his + own nature. But to make him a <em>slave,</em> cheapens to nothing <em>universal + human nature,</em> and instead of healing a wound, gives a death stab. + What! repair an injury done to rational being in the robbery of <em>one</em> of + its rights, not merely by robbing it of <em>all,</em> but by annihilating the very + <em>foundation</em> of them—that everlasting distinction between men and + things? To make a man a chattel, is not the <em>punishment,</em> but the <em>annihilation</em> + of a <em>human</em> being, and, so far as it goes, of <em>all</em> human beings. + This commutation of the punishment of death, into perpetual slavery, + what a fortunate discovery! Alas! for the honor of Deity, if commentators + had not manned the forlorn hope, and rushed to the rescue of the + Divine character at the very crisis of its fate, and, by a timely movement, + covered its retreat from the perilous position in which inspiration had + carelessly left it! Here a question arises of sufficient importance for a + separate dissertation; but must for the present be disposed of in a few + paragraphs. WERE THE CANAANITES SENTENCED BY GOD TO INDIVIDUAL + AND UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION? That the views generally + prevalent on this subject, are wrong, we have no doubt; but as + the limits of this Inquiry forbid our going into the merits of the question, + so as to give all the grounds of dissent from the commonly received + opinions, the suggestions made, will be thrown out merely as QUERIES, + and not as a formal laying down of <i>doctrines</i>. + + </p> + <p> + The leading directions as to the disposal of the Canaanites, are mainly + in the following passages, Exod. xxiii. 23-33, and 33-51, and 34, + 11—Deut. vii. 16-25, and ix. 3, and xxxi. 3, 1, 2. In these verses, + the Israelites are commanded to "destroy the Canaanites"—to "drive + out,"—"consume,"—"utterly overthrow,"—"put out,"—"dispossess + them," &c. Quest. Did these commands enjoin the unconditional and + universal destruction of the <em>individuals,</em> or merely of the <i>body politic?</i> + Ans. The Hebrew word <i>Haram,</i> to destroy, signifies <i>national,</i> as well + as individual destruction; <i>political</i> existence, equally with <i>personal;</i> the + destruction of governmental organization, equally with the lives of the + subjects. Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, + &c., to mean <i>personal</i> destruction, what meaning shall we give + to the expressions, "drive out before thee;" "cast out before thee;" + "expel," "put out," "dispossess," &c., which are used in the same + passages? + + </p> + <p> + For a clue to the sense in which the word <em>"destroy"</em> is used, see + Exodus xxiii. 27. "I will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt + + come, and I will make all thine enemies <em>turn their backs unto thee</em>." + Here "<em>all their enemies</em>" were to <em>turn their backs</em>, and "<em>all the people</em>" to be + "<em>destroyed</em>". Does this mean that God would let all their <em>enemies</em> escape, + but kill all their <em>friends</em>, or that he would <em>first</em> kill "all the people" + and THEN make them turn their backs in flight, an army of runaway corpses? + + </p> + <p> + The word rendered <em>backs</em>, is in the original, <em>necks</em>, and the passage + <em>may</em> mean, I will make all your enemies turn their necks unto you; + that is, be <em>subject to you as tributaries</em>, become <i>denationalized</i>, their + civil polity, state organization, political existence, <em>destroyed</em>—their idolatrous + temples, altars, images, groves, and all heathen rites <em>destroyed</em>; in a + word, their whole system, national, political, civil, and religious, subverted, + and the whole people <em>put under tribute</em>. Again; if these commands + required the unconditional destruction of all the <em>individuals</em> of the Canaanites, + the Mosaic law was at war with itself, for the directions relative + to the treatment of native residents and sojourners, form a large part + of it. "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one + born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." "If thy brother + be waxen poor, thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a <em>stranger or + a sojourner</em>, that he may live with thee." "Thou shalt not oppress a + <em>stranger</em>." "Thou shalt not vex a <em>stranger</em>." "Judge righteously between + every, man and his brother, and the <em>stranger</em> that is with him." + "Ye shall not respect persons in judgement." "Ye shall have one + manner of law as well for the <em>stranger</em>, as for him of your own country." + We find, also, that provision was made for them in the cities of + refuge. Num. xxxv. 15—the gleanings of the harvest and vintage were + assigned to them, Lev. xix. 9, 10, and xxiii. 22, and 25, 6;—the blessings + of the Sabbath, theirs, Ex. xx. 10;—the privilege of offering sacrifices + secured, Lev. 22. 18; and stated religious instruction provided + for them. Deut. xxxi. 9, 12. Now, does this <em>same law</em> authorize and + appoint the <em>individual extermination</em> of those very persons, whose lives + and general interests it so solicitously protects? These laws were + given to the Israelites, long <em>before</em> they entered Canaan; and they + must of necessity have inferred from them, that a multitude of the inhabitants + of the land would <em>continue in it</em>, under their government. + + </p> + <p> + 3. <em>We argue that these commands did not require the</em> INDIVIDUAL <em>destruction + of the Canaanites unconditionally, from the fact that the most + pious Israelites never seem to have so regarded them.</em> Joshua was selected + as the leader of Israel to execute God's threatenings upon Canaan. + He had no <em>discretionary</em> power. God's commands were his + <em>official instructions.</em> Going <em>beyond</em> them would have been usurpation; + refusing <em>to carry them out,</em> rebellion and treason. For not obeying, in + <em>every particular,</em> and in a <em>single</em> instance, God's command respecting + the Amalekites, Saul was rejected from being king. + + </p> + <p> + Now, if God commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaanitish + nations, Joshua <em>disobeyed him in every instance.</em> For at his death, + the Israelites still <em>"dwelt among them,"</em> and each nation is mentioned + by name. See Judges i. 5, and yet we are told that "Joshua was full + of the spirit of the Lord and of WISDOM," Deut. xxxiv. 9. (of course, + he could not have been ignorant of the meaning of those commands,)—that + "the Lord was with him," Josh. vi. 27; and that he "left nothing + undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses;" and further, that he + "took all that land." Joshua xi, 15-23. Also, that "the Lord gave + unto Israel all the land which he swore to give unto their fathers, and + they possessed it and dwelt therein, and there <em>stood not a man</em> of <em>all</em> + their enemies before them." "The Lord delivered <em>all their</em> enemies + into their hand," &c. + + </p> + <p> + How can this testimony be reconciled with itself, if we suppose that + the command to <em>destroy</em> enjoined <em>individual</em> extermination, and the + command to <em>drive out</em>, enjoined the unconditional expulsion of individuals + from the country, rather than their expulsion from the <em>possession</em> or + <em>ownership</em> of it, as the lords of the soil? It is true, multitudes of the + Canaanites were slain, but in every case it was in consequence of their + refusing to surrender their land to the possession of the Israelites. + Not a solitary case can be found in which a Canaanite was either killed + or driven out of the country, who acquiesced in the transfer of the territory + of Canaan, and its sovereignty, from the inhabitants of the land to + the Israelites. Witness the case of Rahab and all her kindred, and the + inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and + Kirjathjearim<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN28a"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN28a"></a>. The + + Canaanites knew of the miracles in Egypt, at the Red Sea, in the wilderness, + and at the passage of Jordan. They knew that their land had + been transferred to the Israelites, as a judgment upon them for their + sins.—See Joshua ii. 9-11, and ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of them were + awed by these wonders, and made no resistance to the confiscation of + their territory. Others fiercely resisted, defied the God of the armies + of Israel, and came out to battle. These occupied the <i>fortified cities</i>, + were the most <em>inveterate</em> heathen—the <em>aristocracy</em> of idolatry, the <em>kings</em>, + the <em>nobility</em> and <em>gentry</em>, the <em>priests</em>, with their crowds of satellites, and + retainers that aided in the performance of idolatrous rites, the <em>military + forces</em>, with the chief profligates and lust-panders of both sexes. Every + Bible student will recall many facts corroborating this supposition. Such + as the multitudes of <i>tributaries</i> in the midst of Israel, and that too, when + the Israelites had "waxed strong," and the uttermost nations quaked at + the terror of their name. The large numbers of the Canaanites, as + well as the Philistines and others, who became proselytes, and joined + themselves to the Hebrews—as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite, one + of David's memorable "thirty seven"—Rahab, who married one of the + princes of Judah—Ittai—The six hundred Gitites—David's bodyguard, + "faithful among the faithless."—2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the + Gittite, who was adopted into the tribe of Levi.—Compare 2 Sam. vi. + 10, 11, with 1 Chron. xv. 18, and 1 Chron xxvi. 45. The cases of Jaziz, + and Obil,—1 Chron. xxvi. 30, 31, 33. Jephunneh, the father of Caleb—the + Kenite, registered in the genealogies of the tribe of Judah, and + the one hundred and fifty thousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon + in the building of the Temple<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN28b"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN28b"></a>. Add to + these, the fact that the most + memorable miracle on record, was wrought for the salvation of a portion + of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of those who would exterminate + them.—Joshua x. 12-14. Further—the terms used in the + directions of God to the Israelites, regulating their disposal of the Canaanites, + such as, "drive out," "put out," "cast out," "expel," "dispossess," + &c. seem used interchangeably with "consume," "destroy," + "overthrow," &c., and thus indicate the sense in which the latter words + + are used. As an illustration of the meaning generally attached to these + and similar terms, when applied to the Canaanites in Scripture, we refer + the reader to the history of the Amalekites. In Ex. xxvii. 14, God + says, "I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under + heaven,"—In Deut. xxv. 19, "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of + Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it."—In 1 Sam. xv. + 2, 3. "Smite Amalek and <em>utterly destroy</em> all that they have, and spare + them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox + and sheep." In the seventh and eighth verses of the same chapter, + we are told, "Saul smote the Amalekites, and took Agag the king + of the Amalekites, alive, and UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE + with the edge of the sword." In verse 20, Saul says, "I have obeyed + the voice of the Lord, and have brought Agag, the king of Amalek, + and have <em>utterly destroyed</em> the Amalekites." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN28a"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN28a">A</a>: Perhaps it will be objected, that the + preservation of the Gibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation + of the command of God. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such + intimation. If God had straitly commanded them to <em>exterminate all the + Canaanites,</em> their pledge to save them alive, was neither a repeal of + the statute, nor absolution for the breach of it. If <em>unconditional + destruction</em> was the import of the command, would God have permitted + such an act to pass without severe rebuke? Would he have established such + a precedent when Israel had hardly passed the threshhold of Canaan, and was + then striking the first blow of a half century war? What if they + <em>had</em> passed their word to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more + binding upon them than God's command? So Saul seems to have passed + <em>his</em> word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in pieces, because in + saving his life, Saul had violated God's command. This same Saul appears to + have put the same construction on the command to destroy the inhabitants of + Canaan, that is generally put upon it now. We are told that he sought to slay + the Gibeonites "in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah." God sent + upon Israel a three years' famine for it. In assigning the reason, he says, + "It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites." + When David inquired of them what atonement he should make, they say, "The man + that consumed us, and that devised against us, that we should the destroyed + from <em>remaining in any of the coasts of Israel</em> let seven of his + sons be delivered," &c. 2 Samuel xxii. 1-6. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN28b"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN28b">B</a>: If the Canaanites were + devoted by God to individual and unconditional extermination, + to have employed them in the erection of the temple,—what was it but + the climax of impiety? As well might they pollute its altars with swine's + flesh, or make their sons pass through the fire to Moloch. + </p> + <p> + In 1 Sam. 30th chapter, we find the Amalekites at war again, + marching an army into Israel, and sweeping every thing before them—and + all this in hardly more than twenty years after they had <em>all been</em> + UTTERLY DESTROYED! + + </p> + <p> + Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be quoted against the preceding + view. "<em>But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God + doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that + breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and + the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the + Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee</em>." We argue + that this command to exterminate, did not include all the individuals of + the Canaanitish nations, but only the inhabitants of the <em>cities</em>, (and even + those conditionally,) for the following reasons. + + </p> + <p> + I. Only the inhabitants of <em>cities</em> are specified,—"of the <em>cities</em> of these + people thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." The reasons for + this wise discrimination were, no doubt, (1.) Cities then, as now, were + pest-houses of vice—they reeked with abominations little practiced in + the country. On this account, their influence would be far more perilous + to the Israelites than that of the country. (2.) These cities + were the centres of idolatry—the residences of the priests, with their + retinues of the baser sort. There were their temples and altars, and + idols, without number. Even their buildings, streets, and public walks + were so many visibilities of idolatry. The reason assigned in the 18th + verse for exterminating them, strengthens the idea,—"<em>that they teach + you not to do after all the abominations which they have done unto their + + gods</em>." This would be a reason for exterminating <em>all</em> the nations and + individuals <em>around</em> them, as all were idolaters; but God permitted, and + even commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact + with <em>any</em> of them would be perilous—with the inhabitants of the + <em>cities</em> peculiarly, and of the <em>Canaanitish</em> cities preeminently so. + + </p> + <p> + It will be seen from the 10th and 11th verses, that those cities which + accepted the offer of peace were to be spared. "<em>When thou comest + nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it + shall be, if it make thee answer of peace and open unto thee, then it shall + be, that all the people that is found therein shall be</em> TRIBUTARIES <em>unto + thee, and they shall</em> SERVE thee."—Deuteronomy xx. 10, 11. These + verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in which cities + were to be summoned to surrender. + + </p> + <p> + 1. The offer of peace—if it was accepted, the inhabitants became + <i>tributaries</i>—if it was rejected, and they came out against Israel in battle, + the <em>men</em> were to be killed, and the women and little ones saved + alive. See Deuteronomy xx. 12, 13, 14. The 15th verse restricts + their lenient treatment in saving the wives and little ones of those who + fought them, to the inhabitants of the cities <em>afar off</em>. The 16th verse + gives directions for the disposal of the inhabitants of Canaanitish cities, + after they had taken them. Instead of sparing the women and children, + they were to save alive nothing that breathed. The common + mistake has been, in taking it for granted, that the command in the 15th + verse, "Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities," &c. refers to the <em>whole system + of directions preceding</em>, commencing with the 10th verse, whereas + it manifestly refers only to the <em>inflictions</em> specified in the verses immediately + preceding, viz. the 12th, 13th, and 14th, and thus make a distinction + between those <em>Canaanitish</em> cities that <em>fought</em>, and the cities <em>afar + off</em> that fought—in one case destroying the males and females, and in + the other, the <em>males</em> only. The offer of peace, and the <i>conditional preservation</i>, + were as really guarantied to <em>Canaanitish</em> cities as to others. + Their inhabitants were not to be exterminated <em>unless they came out + against Israel in battle</em>. But let us settle this question by the "<em>law + and the testimony</em>." Joshua xix. 19, 20.—"<em>There was not a city that + made peace with the children of Israel save, the Hivites, the inhabitants of + Gibeon; all others they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden + their hearts, that they should</em> COME OUT AGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, + <em>that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but + that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses</em>." That is, if + + they had <em>not</em> come out against Israel in battle, they would have had + "favor" shown them, and would not have been "<em>destroyed utterly</em>" + + </p> + <p> + The great design of God seems to have been to <em>transfer the territory</em> + of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, <em>absolute sovereignty + in every respect</em>; to annihilate their political organizations, civil polity, + jurisprudence, and their system of religion, with all its rights and appendages; + and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy, administered by + Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and agents. Those + who resisted the execution of Jehovah's purpose were to be killed, while + those who quietly submitted to it were to be spared. All had the choice + of these alternatives, either free egress out of the land<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN29"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN29"></a>; or acquiescence + in the decree, with life and residence as tributaries, under the + protection of the government; or resistance to the execution of the decree, + with death. "<em>And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently + learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, the Lord liveth, as + they taught my people to swear by Baal;</em> THEN SHALL THEY BE BUILT + IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4_FN29"></a><a href="#FootE4_FN29">A</a>: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their territory at the + tidings of Israel's approach, did God's command require the Israelites to + chase them to the ends of the earth, and hunt them down, until every Canaanite + was destroyed? It is too preposterous for belief, and yet it follows + legitimately from that construction, which interprets the terms "consume," + "destroy," "destroy utterly," &c. to mean unconditional individual + extermination. + </p> + </div> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + [The preceding Inquiry is merely an <em>outline</em>. Whoever <em>reads</em> it, + needs no such information. Its original design embraced a much + wider range of general topics, and subordinate heads, besides an Inquiry + into the teachings of the New Testament on the same subject. To + have filled up the outline, in conformity with the plan upon which it + was sketched, would have swelled it to a volume. Much of the foregoing + has therefore been thrown into the form of a mere skeleton of + heads, or rather a series of <em>indices</em>, to trains of thought and classes of + proof, which, however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some + facilities to those who have little leisure for minute and protracted investigation.] + + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h2><a name="E4r3"></a><br><br> + No. 4. + <br><br><br> + THE + <br> + + ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + <br><br> + THE + <br><br> + BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY. + <br> + + + AN INQUIRY INTO THE + + + + PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS + + + ON THE SUBJECT OF + + HUMAN RIGHTS. + + Third Edition—Revised. + + </h2> + NEW YORK: + + <p> + PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, + + </p> + <p> + NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. + + </p> + <p> + 1838. + + </p> + <p> + This periodical contains 5 sheets.—Postage under 100 miles, 7 1-2 cts; over 100 miles, 12 1-2 cts. + + </p> + <p><i>Please read and circulate.</i></p> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="projectID3ec2855c3002e-div-d0e11197"></a> + CONTENTS + + </h3> + <ul> + <li><a name="d0e11201"></a><a href="#E4r3_def" class="ref">DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11204"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e11206"></a><a href="#E4r3_def_neg" class="ref">Negative,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11209"></a><a href="#E4r3_def_aff" class="ref">Affirmative,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11212"></a><a href="#E4r3_def_leg" class="ref">Legal,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e11215"></a><a href="#E4r3_mor" class="ref">THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11218"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e11220"></a><a href="#E4r3_mor_steal" class="ref">"Thou shalt not steal,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11223"></a><a href="#E4r3_mor_covet" class="ref">"Thou shalt not covet,"</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e11226"></a><a href="#E4r3_Ex21_16" class="ref">MAN-STEALING—EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11229"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e11231"></a><a href="#E4r3_Ex21_16_mnbst" class="ref">Separation of man from brutes and things,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e11234"></a><a href="#E4r3_buy" class="ref">IMPORT OF "BUY" AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11237"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e11239"></a><a href="#E4r3_buy_selves" class="ref">Servants sold themselves,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e11242"></a><a href="#E4r3_rights" class="ref">RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SERVANTS,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11245"></a><a href="#E4r3_vol" class="ref">SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11248"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e11250"></a><a href="#E4r3_vol_run" class="ref">Runaway Servants not to be delivered to their Masters,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e11253"></a><a href="#E4r3_wages" class="ref">SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11256"></a><a href="#E4r3_noown" class="ref">MASTERS NOT "OWNERS,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11259"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e11261"></a><a href="#E4r3_noown_useprop" class="ref">Servants not subjected to the uses of property,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11264"></a><a href="#E4r3_noown_distprop" class="ref">Servants expressly distinguished from property,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11267"></a><a href="#E4r3_noown_gen_12_5" class="ref">Examination of Gen. xii. 5.—"The souls that they had gotten," &c.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11270"></a><a href="#E4r3_noown_socequ" class="ref">Social equality of Servants and Masters,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11273"></a><a href="#E4r3_noown_gib" class="ref">Condition of the Gibeonites as subjects of the Hebrew Commonwealth,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11276"></a><a href="#E4r3_noown_Egy" class="ref">Egyptian Bondage analyzed,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e11279"></a><a href="#E4r3_OBJ" class="ref">OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11282"></a><a href="#E4r3_Canaan" class="ref">"CURSED BE CANAAN," &c.—EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11285"></a><a href="#E4r3_money" class="ref">"FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &c.—EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 20, 21,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11288"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_44" class="ref">EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44-46,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11291"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e11293"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_44_bond" class="ref">"Both thy BONDMEN, &c., shall be of the heathen,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11296"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_44_forever" class="ref">"They shall be your bondmen FOREVER,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11299"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_44_inherit" class="ref">"Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE," &c.</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e11303"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_39" class="ref">EXAMINATION OF LEV. XXV. 39, 40.—THE FREEHOLDER NOT TO "SERVE AS A BOND SERVANT,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11306"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e11308"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_39_diff" class="ref">Difference between Hired and Bought Servants,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11311"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_39_bgtfav" class="ref">Bought Servants the most favored and honored class,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11314"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_39_both" class="ref">Israelites and Strangers belonged to both classes,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11317"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_39_Isrserv" class="ref">Israelites servants to the Strangers,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11320"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_39_reas7yr" class="ref">Reasons for the release of the Israelitish Servants in the seventh year,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11323"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_39_lngreas" class="ref">Reasons for assigning the Strangers to a longer service,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11326"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_39_thereas" class="ref">Reasons for calling them <em>the</em> Servants,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11332"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_39_dsrv" class="ref">Different kinds of service assigned to the Israelites and Strangers,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e11335"></a><a href="#E4r3_review" class="ref">REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF EACH,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11338"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e11340"></a><a href="#E4r3_review_pol" class="ref">Political disabilities of the Strangers,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e11343"></a><a href="#E4r3_Ex21_2" class="ref">EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2-6.—"IF THOU BUY AN HEBREW SERVANT,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e11346"></a><a href="#E4r3_uncext" class="ref">THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION,</a></li> + </ul> + </div> + <p><br><br> + THE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY. + <br><br></p> + <p> + The spirit of slavery never seeks shelter in the Bible, of its own + accord. It grasps the horns of the altar only in desperation—rushing + from the terror of the avenger's arm. Like other unclean spirits, it + "hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest its deeds should + be reproved." Goaded to phrenzy in its conflicts with conscience + and common sense, denied all quarter, and hunted from every covert, + it vaults over the sacred inclosure and courses up and down the Bible, + "seeking rest, and finding none." THE LAW OF LOVE, glowing on + every page, flashes around it an omnipresent anguish and despair. + It shrinks from the hated light, and howls under the consuming touch, + as demons quailed before the Son of God, and shrieked, "Torment us + not." At last, it slinks away under the types of the Mosaic system, + and seeks to burrow out of sight among their shadows. Vain hope! + Its asylum is its sepulchre; its city of refuge, the city of destruction. + It flies from light into the sun; from heat, into devouring fire; and + from the voice of God into the thickest of His thunders. + + </p> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_def"></a> + DEFINITION OF SLAVERY. + + </h3> + <p><a name="E4r3_def_neg"></a> + If we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must + determine <em>what slavery is</em>. A constituent element, is one thing; a + relation, another; an appendage, another. Relations and appendages + presuppose <em>other</em> things to which they belong. To regard them as + <em>the things themselves</em>, or as constituent parts of them, leads to endless + fallacies. A great variety of conditions, relations, and tenures, + + indispensable to the social state, are confounded with slavery; and + thus slaveholding becomes quite harmless, if not virtuous. We will + specify some of these. + + </p> + <p> + 1. <em>Privation of suffrage.</em> Then minors are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 2. <em>Ineligibility to office.</em> Then females are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 3. <em>Taxation without representation.</em> Then slaveholders in the + District of Columbia are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 4. <em>Privation of one's oath in law.</em> Then disbelievers in a future + retribution are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 5. <em>Privation of trial by jury.</em> Then all in France and Germany + are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 6. <em>Being required to support a particular religion.</em> Then the people + of England are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all + other disabilities, merely <em>political</em>.] + + </p> + <p> + 7. <em>Cruelty and oppression.</em> Wives, children, and hired domestics + are often oppressed; but these forms of cruelty are not slavery. + + </p> + <p> + 8. <em>Apprenticeship.</em> The rights and duties of master and apprentice + are correlative and reciprocal. The claim of each upon the other + results from his <em>obligation</em> to the other. Apprenticeship is based on + the principle of equivalent for value received. The rights of the + apprentice are secured, equally with those of the master. Indeed, + while the law is <em>just</em> to the master, it is <em>benevolent</em> to the apprentice. + Its main design is rather to benefit the apprentice than the master. + It promotes the interests of the former, while in doing it, it guards + from injury those of the latter. To the master it secures a mere legal + compensation—to the apprentice, both a legal compensation and a + virtual gratuity in addition, he being of the two the greatest gainer. + The law not only recognizes the <em>right</em> of the apprentice to a reward + for his labor, but appoints the wages, and enforces the payment. + The master's claim covers only the services of the apprentice. The + apprentice's claim covers <em>equally</em> the services of the master. Neither + can hold the other as property; but each holds property in the services + of the other, and BOTH EQUALLY. Is this slavery? + + </p> + <p> + 9. <em>Filial subordination and parental claims.</em> Both are nature's + dictates and intrinsic elements of the social state; the natural + affections which blend parent and child in one, excite each to discharge + those offices incidental to the relation, and constitute a shield for + mutual protection. The parent's legal claim to the child's services, + while a minor, is a slight return for the care and toil of his rearing, + + to say nothing of outlays for support and education. This provision + is, with the mass of mankind, indispensable to the preservation of the + family state. The child, in helping his parents, helps himself—increases + a common stock, in which he has a share; while his most + faithful services do but acknowledge a debt that money cannot cancel. + + </p> + <p> + 10. <em>Bondage for crime.</em> Must innocence be punished because + guilt suffers penalties? True, the criminal works for the government + without pay; and well he may. He owes the government. A century's + work would not pay its drafts on him. He is a public defaulter, + and will die so. Because laws make men pay their debts, shall those + be forced to pay who owe nothing? The law makes no criminal, + PROPERTY. It restrains his liberty, and makes him pay something, + a mere penny in the pound, of his debt to the government; but it + does not make him a chattel. Test it. To own property, is to own + its product. Are children born of convicts, government property? + Besides, can <em>property</em> be guilty? Are chattels punished? + + </p> + <p> + 11. <em>Restraints upon freedom.</em> Children are restrained by + parents—pupils, by teachers—patients, by physicians—corporations, by + charters—and legislatures, by constitutions. Embargoes, tariffs, quarantine, + and all other laws, keep men from doing as they please. Restraints + are the web of society, warp and woof. Are they slavery? + then civilized society is a giant slave—a government of LAW, <em>the + climax of slavery,</em> and its executive, a king among slaveholders. + + </p> + <p> + 12. <em>Compulsory service.</em> A juryman is empannelled against his + will, and sit he must. A sheriff orders his posse; bystanders <em>must</em> + turn in. Men are <em>compelled</em> to remove nuisances, pay fines and taxes, + support their families, and "turn to the right as the law directs," + however much against their wills. Are they therefore slaves? To + confound slavery with involuntary service is absurd. Slavery is a + <em>condition</em>. The slave's <em>feelings</em> toward it, are one thing; the condition + itself, is another thing; his feelings cannot alter the nature of that + condition. Whether he desires or detests it, the condition remains the + same. The slave's willingness to be a slave is no palliation of + the slaveholder's guilt. Suppose the slave should think himself a + chattel, and consent to be so regarded by others, does that <em>make</em> + him a chattel, or make those guiltless who <em>hold</em> him as such? I + may be sick of life, and I tell the assassin so that stabs me; is + he any the less a murderer? Does my <em>consent</em> to his crime, atone + for it? my partnership in his guilt, blot out his part of it? The + + slave's willingness to be a slave, so far from lessening the guilt of + the "owner," aggravates it. If slavery has so palsied his mind that + he looks upon himself as a chattel, and consents to be one, actually + to hold him as such, falls in with his delusion, and confirms the + impious falsehood. These very feelings and convictions of the slave, + (if such were possible) increase a hundred fold the guilt of the master, + and call upon him in thunder, immediately to recognize him as a + man and thus break the sorcery that cheats him out of his + birthright—the consciousness of his worth and destiny. + + </p> + <p> + Many of the foregoing conditions are <i>appendages</i> of slavery. But + no one, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging + element. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_def_aff"></a> + We proceed to state affirmatively that, ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING + THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY—making free agents, chattels—converting + <i>persons</i> into <i>things</i>—sinking immortality, into <i>merchandize</i>. + A <i>slave</i> is one held in this condition. In law, "he owns nothing, + and can acquire nothing." His right to himself is abrogated. If he + say <em>my</em> hands, <em>my</em> feet, <em>my</em> body, <em>my</em> mind, + MY <em>self</em>, they are figures of + speech. To use <em>himself</em> for his own good, is a CRIME. To keep + what he <em>earns</em>, is stealing. To take his body into his own keeping, + is <em>insurrection</em>. In a word, the <em>profit</em> of his master is made the END + of his being, and he, a <em>mere means</em> to that end—a + <em>mere means</em> to an + end into which his interests do not enter, of which they constitute no + portion<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN1"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN1"></a>. MAN, sunk to a + <em>thing!</em> the intrinsic element, the <em>principle</em> + of slavery; MEN, bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, invoiced, + shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on executions, and knocked + off at public outcry! Their <em>rights</em>, another's conveniences; their + interests, wares on sale; their happiness, a household utensil; their + personal inalienable ownership, a serviceable article, or a plaything, + as best suits the humor of the hour; their deathless nature, conscience, + + social affections, sympathies, hopes—marketable commodities! + We repeat it, <em>the reduction of persons to things;</em> not robbing a + man of privileges, but of <em>himself</em>; not loading with burdens, but making + him a <em>beast of burden</em>; not <em>restraining</em> liberty, but subverting it; not + curtailing rights, but abolishing them; not inflicting personal cruelty, + but annihilating <em>personality</em>; not exacting involuntary labor, but sinking + him into an <em>implement</em> of labor; not abridging human comforts, + but abrogating human nature; not depriving an animal of immunities, + but despoiling a rational being of attributes—uncreating a MAN, to + make room for a <em>thing</em>! + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN1"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN1">A</a>: Whatever system sinks men from an END to a + mere <em>means</em>, just so far makes him + a <em>slave</em>. Hence West India apprenticeship retains the cardinal principle of slavery. + The apprentice, during three fourths of his time, is still forced to labor, and robbed + of his earnings; just so far forth he is a <em>mere means</em>, a <em>slave</em>. True, in other + respects slavery is abolished in the British West Indies. Its bloodiest features are blotted + out—but the meanest and most despicable of all—forcing the poor to work for the + rich without pay three fourths of their time, with a legal officer to flog them if they + demur at the outrage, is one of the provisions of the "Emancipation Act!" For the + glories of that luminary, abolitionists thank God, while they mourn that it rose + behind clouds, and shines through an eclipse. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_def_leg"></a> + That this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave + states. Judge Stroud, in his "Sketch of the Laws relating to + Slavery," says, "The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is + not to be ranked among sentient beings, but among <em>things</em>—obtains + as undoubted law in all of these [the slave] states." The law of + South Carolina thus lays down the principle, "Slaves shall be deemed, + held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be chattels personal in + the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, + and assigns, to ALL INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES + WHATSOEVER."—Brevard's Digest, 229. In Louisiana, "A + slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs; + the master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his + labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing, but + what must belong to his master."—Civ. Code of Louisiana, Art. 35. + + </p> + <p> + This is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a + person and a thing, trampled under foot—the crowning distinction of + all others—alike the source, the test, and the measure of their value—the + rational, immortal principle, consecrated by God to universal + homage, in a baptism of glory and honor by the gift of His Son, + His Spirit, His word, His presence, providence, and power; His + shield, and staff, and sheltering wing; His opening heavens, and + angels ministering, and chariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, + and a great voice in heaven, proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirming + the word with signs following. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_mor"></a></h3> + <p> + Having stated the <em>principle</em> of American slavery, we ask, DOES + THE BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN2"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN2"></a> "To the <em>law</em> and the + <em>testimony</em>?" First, the moral law. Just after the Israelites were + emancipated from their bondage in Egypt, while they stood before + Sinai to receive the law, as the trumpet waxed louder, and the + mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten commandments from + the midst of clouds and thunderings. <em>Two</em> of those commandments + deal death to slavery. "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL," or, "thou shalt + not take from another what belongs to him." All man's powers are + God's gift to <em>him</em>. That they are <em>his own</em>, is proved from the fact + that God has given them to <em>him alone</em>,—that each of them is a part + of himself, and all of them together constitute himself. All else that + belongs to man, is acquired by the <em>use</em> of these powers. The interest + belongs to him, because the principal does; the product is his, because + he is the producer. Ownership of any thing, is ownership of its <em>use</em>. + The right to use according to will, is <em>itself</em> ownership. The eighth + commandment presupposes and assumes the right of every man to + his powers, and their product. Slavery robs of both. A man's right + to himself, is the only right absolutely original and intrinsic—his + right to whatever else that belongs to him is merely <em>relative</em> to this, + is derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the + <em>foundation right</em>—the <em>post is the middle</em>, to which all other rights are + fastened. Slaveholders, when talking about their RIGHT to their + slaves, always assume their own right to themselves. What slaveholder + ever undertook to prove his right to himself? He knows it + to be a self-evident proposition, that <em>a man belongs to himself</em>—that + the right is intrinsic and absolute. In making out his own title, he + makes out the title of every human being. As the fact of being a + <em>man</em> is itself the title, the whole human family have one common title + deed. If one man's title is valid, all are valid. If one is worthless, + all are. To deny the validity of the <em>slave's</em> title is to deny the + validity of <em>his own</em>; and yet in the act of making a man a slave, the + slaveholder <em>asserts</em> the validity of his own title, while he seizes him + as his property who has the <em>same</em> title. Further, in making him a + slave, he does not merely disfranchise the humanity of <em>one</em> individual, + but of UNIVERSAL MAN. He destroys the foundations. He annihilates + <em>all rights</em>. He attacks not only the human race, but <em>universal + + being</em>, and rushes upon JEHOVAH. For rights are <em>rights</em>; God's are no more—man's are no less. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN2"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN2">A</a>: The Bible + record of actions is no comment on their moral character. It vouches + for them as <em>facts</em>, not as <em>virtues</em>. It records without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, + Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob and his mother—not only single acts, but <em>usages</em>, such as polygamy and concubinage, are entered on the + record without censure. Is that <em>silent entry</em> God's <em>endorsement</em>? Because the Bible in its catalogue of human + actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write against it, + <i>this is a crime</i>—does that wash out its guilt, and bleach into a virtue? + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_mor_steal"></a> + The eighth commandment forbids the taking of <em>any part</em> of that + which belongs to another. Slavery takes the <em>whole</em>. Does the same + Bible which prohibits the taking of <em>any</em> thing from him, sanction + the taking of <em>every</em> thing? Does it thunder wrath against him + who robs his neighbor of a <em>cent</em>, yet bid God speed to him who + robs his neighbor of <em>himself</em>? Slaveholding is the highest + possible violation of the eighth commandment. To take from a man his + earnings, is theft. But to take the <em>earner</em>, is a compound, + life-long theft—supreme robbery, that vaults up the climax at a + leap—the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that towers among other + robberies a solitary horror, monarch of the realm. + The eighth commandment forbids the taking away, and the <em>tenth</em> + adds, <a name="E4r3_mor_covet"></a>"THOU SHALT NOT COVET ANY THING THAT IS THY + NEIGHBOR'S;" thus guarding every man's right to himself and his property, + by making not only the actual taking away a sin, but even that state of mind + which would <em>tempt</em> to it. Who ever made human beings slaves, + without <em>coveting</em> them? Why take from them their time, labor, + liberty, right of self-preservation and improvement, their right to + acquire property, to worship according to conscience; to search the + Scriptures, to live with their families, and their right to their own + bodies, if they do not <em>desire</em> them? They covet them for purposes + of gain, convenience, lust of dominion, of sensual gratification of pride and + ostentation. THEY BREAK THE TENTH COMMANDMENT, and pluck down upon their + heads the plagues that are written in the book.—<em>Ten</em> + commandments constitute the brief compend of human + duty.—<em>Two</em> of these brand slavery as sin. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_Ex21_16"></a></h3> + <p> + The giving of the law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promulgation of + that body of laws called the "Mosaic system." Over the + gateway of that system, fearful words were written by the finger of + God—"HE THAT STEALETH A MAN AND SELLETH HIM, OR IF HE + BE FOUND IN HIS HAND, HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH." + Ex. xxi. 16. + + </p> + <p> + The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought + for their deliverance, proclaim the reason for <em>such</em> a law at + <em>such</em> a time—when the body politic became a theocracy, and + reverently waited for the will of God. They had just been emancipated. The + tragedies of their house of bondage were the realities of yesterday, and + peopled their memories with thronging horrors. They had just + + witnessed God's testimony against oppression in the plagues of + Egypt—the burning blains on man and beast—the dust quickened into + loathsome life, and swarming upon every living thing—the streets, + the palaces, the temples, and every house heaped up with the carcases + of things abhorred—the kneading troughs and ovens, the secret + chambers and the couches; reeking and dissolving with the putrid + death—the pestilence walking in darkness at noonday, the devouring + locusts, and hail mingled with fire, the first-born death-struck, + and the waters blood, and last of all, that dread high hand and stretched-out + arm, that whelmed the monarch and his hosts, and strewed + their corpses on the sea. All this their eyes had looked upon,—earth's + proudest city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying in desolation, + and the doom of oppressors traced on her ruins in the hand writing + of God, glaring in letters of fire mingled with blood—a blackened + monument of wrath to the uttermost against the stealers of men. No + wonder that God, in a code of laws prepared for such a people at + such a time, should light up on its threshold a blazing beacon to flash + terror on slaveholders. <em>"He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if + he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."</em> Ex. xxi. 16. + Deut. xxiv. 7<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN3"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN3"></a>. God's cherubim and + flaming sword guarding the entrance to the Mosaic system! + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN3"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN3">A</a>: Jarchi, the most eminent of the Jewish + Commentators, who wrote seven hundred years ago, in his commentary on this + stealing and making merchandize of men, gives the meaning thus:—"Using + a man against his will, as a servant lawfully purchased; yea, though he + should use his services ever so little, only to the value of a farthing, + or use but his arm to lean on to support him, <em>if he be forced so to + act as a servant</em>, the person compelling him but once to do so shall + die as a thief, whether he has sold him or not." + </p> + <p> + The word <i>Gānābh</i> here + rendered <i>stealeth</i>, means the taking what + <em>belongs</em> to another, whether by violence or fraud; the same word + is used in the eighth commandment, and prohibits both <em>robbery</em> and + theft. + + </p> + <p> + The crime specified is that of depriving SOMEBODY of the ownership + of a man. Is this somebody a master? and is the crime that of + depriving a master of his servant? Then it would have been "he + that stealeth" a <em>servant, not</em> "he that stealeth a + <em>man</em>." If the crime had been the taking an individual from + <em>another</em>, then the <em>term</em> used + would have been expressive of that relation, and most especially if + it was the relation of property and <em>proprietor</em>! + + </p> + <p> + The crime is stated in a three-fold form—man <em>stealing</em>, + <em>selling</em>, and + <em>holding</em>. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one + penalty—DEATH. This <em>somebody</em> deprived of the + ownership of a man, is the <em>man himself</em>, robbed of personal + ownership. Joseph said, "Indeed I was <em>stolen</em> away out of the + land of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. How <em>stolen?</em> His brethren + sold him as an article of merchandize. Contrast this penalty for + <em>man</em>-stealing with that for <em>property</em>-stealing, + Ex. xxii. If a man had stolen an <em>ox</em> and killed or sold it, + he was to restore five oxen; if he had neither sold nor killed it, two + oxen. But in the case of stealing a <em>man</em>, the <em>first</em> + act drew down the utmost power of punishment; however often repeated, or + aggravated the crime, human penalty could do no more. The fact that the + penalty for <em>man</em>-stealing was death, and the penalty for + <em>property</em>-stealing, the mere restoration of double, shows that the + two cases were adjudicated on totally different principles. The man stolen + might be past labor, and his support a burden, yet death was the penalty, + though not a cent's worth of <em>property value</em> was taken. The + penalty for stealing property was a mere property penalty. However large the + theft, the payment of double wiped out the score. It might have a + greater <em>money</em> value than a thousand men, yet death was not the + penalty, nor maiming, nor branding, nor even <em>stripes</em>, but double + of <em>the same kind.</em> Why was not the rule uniform? When a + <em>man</em> was stolen why was not the thief required to restore double + of the same kind—two men, or if he had sold him, five men? Do you say + that the man-thief might not <em>have</em> them? So the ox-thief might + not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, five. But if God permitted men to + hold <em>men</em> as property, equally with <em>oxen</em>, the + man-thief could get men with whom to pay the penalty, as well as the ox-thief, + oxen. Further, when <em>property</em> was stolen, the legal penalty was a + compensation to the person injured. But when a <em>man</em> was stolen, + no property compensation was offered. To tender money as an equivalent, would + have been to repeat the outrage with intolerable aggravations. Compute + the value of a MAN in <em>money!</em> Throw dust into the scale against + immortality! The law recoiled from such supreme insult and impiety. + To have permitted the man-thief to expiate his crime by restoring + double, would have been making the repetition of crime its + atonement. But the infliction of death for + <i>man-stealing</i> exacted the utmost possibility of + reparation. It wrung from the guilty wretch as he gave up the ghost, a + testimony in blood, and death-groans, to the infinite dignity and worth of + man,—a proclamation to the universe, + + voiced in mortal agony, "MAN IS INVIOLABLE"—a confession shrieked + in phrenzy at the grave's mouth—"I die accursed, and God is just." + + </p> + <p> + If God permitted man to hold man as property, why did he punish + for stealing that kind of property infinitely more than for stealing + any other kind of property? Why did he punish with death for stealing + a very little of <em>that</em> sort of property, and make a mere fine, the + penalty for stealing a thousand times as much, of any other sort of + property—especially if God did by his own act annihilate the difference + between man and <em>property,</em> by putting him on a level with it? + + </p> + <p> + The atrociousness of a crime, depends much upon the nature, character, + and condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the + thief, or whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a full man, is + theft; to steal from a starving man, is both theft and murder. If I + steal my neighbor's property, the crime consists not in altering the + <em>nature</em> of the article but in shifting its relation from him to + me. But when I take my neighbor himself, and first make him + <i>property</i>, and then <em>my</em> property, the + latter act, which was the sole crime in the former case, dwindles to nothing. + The sin in stealing a man, is not the transfer from its owner to another of + that which is <em>already property,</em> but the turning of + <em>personality</em> into <em>property</em>. True, the attributes of + man remain, but the rights and immunities which grow out of them + are attributed. It is the first law both of reason and revelation to + regard things and beings as they are; and the sum of religion, to + feel and act towards them according to their value. Knowingly to + treat them otherwise is sin; and the degree of violence done to their + nature, religions, and value, measures its guilt. When things are + sundered which God has indissolubly joined, or confounded in one, + which he has separated by infinite extremes; when sacred and eternal + distinctions, which he has garnished with glory, are derided and + set at nought, then, if ever, sin reddens to its "scarlet dye." The + sin specified in the passage, is that of doing violence to the + <i>nature</i> of a man—to his intrinsic value as a + rational being, and blotting out the exalted distinction stamped upon him by + his Maker. In the verse preceding, and in that which follows, the same + principle is laid down. Verse 15, "He that smiteth his father or his mother + shall surely be put to death." V. 17, "He that curseth his father or his + mother, shall surely be put to death." If a Jew smote his neighbor, the law + merely smote him in return; but if the blow was given to a + <em>parent,</em> it + + struck the smiter dead. The parental relation is the <em>centre</em> of + human society. God guards it with peculiar care. To violate that, is + to violate all. Whoever trampled on that, showed that <em>no</em> relation + had any sacredness in his eyes—that he was unfit to move among + human relations who had violated one so sacred and tender. Therefore, + the Mosaic law uplifted his bleeding corpse, and brandished the + ghastly terror around the parental relation to guard it from impious + inroads. + + </p> + <p> + Why such a difference in penalties, for the same act? Answer. (1.) + The relation violated was obvious—the distinction between parents + and others manifest, dictated by natural affection—a law of the + constitution. (2.) The act was violence to nature—a suicide on + constitutional susceptibilities. (3.) The parental relation then, as now, + was the focal point of the social system, and required powerful safeguards. + "<em>Honor thy father and thy mother</em>," stands at the head of + those commands which prescribe the duties of man to man; and, + throughout the Bible, the parental state is God's favorite illustration + of his own relations to the whole human family. In this case death + was to be inflicted not for smiting a <em>man</em>, but a + <em>parent</em>—a <em>distinction</em> cherished by God, and + around which, He threw up a bulwark of defence. In the next verse, "He that + stealeth a man," &c., the SAME PRINCIPLE is wrought out in still stronger + relief. The crime to be punished with death was not the taking of property + from its owner, but the doing violence to an <em>immortal nature,</em> + blotting out a sacred <em>distinction</em>, making MEN "chattels." The + incessant pains taken in the Old Testament to separate human beings from + brutes and things, shows God's regard for his own distinction. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_Ex21_16_mnbst"></a> + "In the beginning" it was uttered in heaven, and proclaimed to + the universe as it rose into being. Creation was arrayed at the instant + of its birth, to do it homage. It paused in adoration while God + ushered forth its crowning work. Why that dread pause and that + creating arm held back in mid career and that high conference in + the godhead? "Let us make man in OUR IMAGE after OUR LIKENESS, + AND LET HIM HAVE DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over + the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth." Then + while every living thing, with land, and sea, and firmament, and marshalled + worlds, waited to swell the shout of morning stars—then "GOD + CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE; IN THE IMAGE OF GOD CREATED + HE HIM." This solves the problem, <b>IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, + CREATED HE HIM</b>. Well might the sons of God shout, "Amen, + + alleluia"—For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, + and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to + have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things + under his feet." Ps. viii. 5, 6. The repetition of this distinction is + frequent and solemn. In Gen. i. 26-28, it is repeated in various + forms. In Gen. v. 1, we find it again, "IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD + MADE HE MAN." In Gen. ix. 6, again. After giving license to shed + the blood of "every moving thing that liveth," it is added, "<em>Whoso + sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for</em> IN THE IMAGE + OF GOD MADE HE MAN." As though it had been said, "All these + creatures are your property, designed for your use—they have the + likeness of earth, they perish with the using, and their spirits go + downward; but this other being, MAN, has my own likeness: "IN + THE IMAGE OF GOD made I man;" "an intelligent, moral, immortal + agent, invited to all that I can give and he can be." So in Lev. xxiv. + 17, 18, 21, "He that killeth any MAN shall surely be put to death; + and he that killeth a beast shall make it good, beast for beast; and he + that killeth a man shall be put to death." So in Ps. viii. 5, 6, what + an enumeration of particulars, each separating infinitely MEN from + brutes and things! (1.) "<em>Thou hast made him a little lower than the + angels.</em>" Slavery drags him down among <em>brutes</em>. + (2.) "<em>And hast crowned him with glory and honor.</em>" Slavery tears + off his crown, and puts on a <em>yoke</em>. (3.) "<em>Thou madest him + to have dominion</em> OVER <em>the works of thy hands.</em>" Slavery + breaks the sceptre, and casts him down <i>among</i> those + works—yea <em>beneath them</em>. (4.) "<em>Thou hast put + all things under his feet.</em>" Slavery puts HIM under the feet of an + "owner." Who, but an impious scorner, dares thus strive with his + Maker, and mutilate HIS IMAGE, and blaspheme the Holy One, who + saith, "<em>Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it + unto</em> ME." + + </p> + <p> + In further presenting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems + will be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, + and as many regulations of the latter are mere <em>legal</em> forms of + Divine institutions previously existing. As a <em>system</em>, the latter + alone is of Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs, + God has not made them our exemplars<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN4"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN4"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN4"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN4">A</a>: Those who insist + that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit with such delight under their + shadow, hymning the praises of "those good old patriarchs and slaveholders," + might at small cost greatly augment their numbers. A single stanza + celebrating patriarchal <i>concubinage</i>, winding off + with a chorus in honor of patriarchal <i>drunkenness</i>, + would be a trumpet call, summoning from bush and brake, highway and hedge, + and sheltering fence, a brotherhood of kindred affinities, each claiming + Abraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, "My name is legion." What + a myriad choir and thunderous song. + </p> + <p> + Before entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under + these two states of society, we will consider the import of certain + terms which describe the mode of procuring them. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_buy"></a> + IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY." + + </h3> + <p> + As the Israelites were commanded to "buy" their servants, and as + Abraham had servants "bought with money," it is argued that servants + were articles of <i>property</i>. The sole ground for + this belief is the terms themselves. How much might be saved, if in + discussion, the thing to be proved were always <em>assumed</em>. + To beg the question in debate, would be vast economy of midnight oil! and a + great forestaller of wrinkles and grey hairs! Instead of protracted + investigation into Scripture usage, with painful collating of passages, to + find the meaning of terms, let every man interpret the oldest book in the + world by the usages of his own time and place, and the work is + done. And then instead of one revelation, they might be multiplied + as the drops of the morning, and every man have an infallible clue to + the mind of the Spirit, if he only understood the dialect of his own + neighborhood! What a Babel-jargon it would make of the Bible to + take it for granted that the sense in which words are <em>now</em> used + is the <i>inspired</i> sense, David says, "I prevented + the dawning of the morning, and cried." What, stop the earth in its + revolution! Two hundred years ago, <i>prevent</i> was + used in its strict Latin sense to <i>come before</i>, + or <i>anticipate</i>. It is always used in this sense in + the Old and New Testaments. David's expression, in the English of the + nineteenth century, would be "Before the dawning of the morning I cried." + In almost every chapter of the Bible, words are used in a sense now + nearly or quite obsolete, and sometimes in a sense totally + <em>opposite</em> to their present meaning. A few examples follow: + "I purposed to come to you, but was <em>let</em> (hindered) hitherto." + "And the four <em>beasts</em> (living ones) fell down and worshipped + God,"—"Whosoever shall <em>offend</em> (cause to sin) one of these + little ones,"—"Go out into the highways and <em>compel</em> (urge) + them to come in,"—"Only let your <em>conversation</em> (habitual + conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,"—"They that seek me + <em>early</em> (earnestly) shall find me,"—"So when tribulation + + or persecution ariseth <em>by-and-by</em> (immediately) they are + offended." Nothing is more mutable than language. Words, like bodies, are + always throwing off some particles and absorbing others. So long as + they are mere <em>representatives</em>, elected by the whims of universal + suffrage, their meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it up + for the next century is an employment sufficiently silly (to speak + within bounds) for a modern Bible Dictionary maker. There never + was a shallower conceit than that of establishing the sense attached + to a word centuries ago, by showing what it means <em>now</em>. Pity that + fashionable mantuamakers were not a little quicker at taking hints + from some Doctors of Divinity. How easily they might save their + pious customers all qualms of conscience about the weekly shiftings + of fashion, by proving that the last importation of Parisian indecency + now flaunting on promenade, was the very style of dress in which + the pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the angels, and the modest Rebecca + drew water for the camels of Abraham's servants. Since such + fashions are rife in Broadway <em>now</em>, they <em>must</em> have + been in Canaan and Padanaram four thousand years ago! + + </p> + <p> + The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of + servants, means procuring them as <i>chattels</i>, seems + based upon the fallacy, that whatever <em>costs</em> money <em>is</em> + money; that whatever or whoever you pay money <em>for</em>, is an article + of property, and the fact of your paying for it <em>proves</em> it + property. The children of Israel were required to purchase their first-born + from under the obligations of the priesthood, Num. xviii. 15, 16; + Ex. xiii. 13; xxxiv. 20. This custom still exists among the Jews, and the + word <i>buy</i> is still used to describe + the transaction. Does this prove that their first-born were, or are, + held as property? They were <i>bought</i> as really as + were <i>servants</i>. (2.) The Israelites were required + to pay money for their own souls. This is called sometimes a ransom, sometimes + an atonement. Were their souls therefore marketable commodities? (3.) Bible + saints <i>bought</i> their wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "So + Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I + <i>purchased</i> to be my wife." Ruth iv. 10. + Hosea bought his wife. "So I <i>bought</i> her to me for + fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of + barley." Hosea iii. 2. Jacob bought his wives Rachael and Leah, and not + having money, paid for them in labor—seven years a piece. Gen. + xxix. 15-29. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, + and paid for her by his labor, as the servant of her father. Exod. ii. + + 21. Shechem, when negotiating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, + says, "Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according + as ye shall say unto me." Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David purchased Michal, + and Othniel, Achsah, by performing perilous services for + their fathers. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27; Judg. i. 12, 13. That the + purchase of wives, either with money or by service, was the general + practice, is plain from such passages as Ex. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. + xviii. 25. Among the modern Jews this usage exists, though now a + mere form, there being no <em>real</em> purchase. Yet among their marriage + ceremonies, is one called "marrying by the penny." The coincidences + in the methods of procuring wives and servants, in the terms + employed in describing the transactions, and in the prices paid for + each, are worthy of notice. The highest price of wives (virgins) and + servants was the same. Comp. Deut. xxii. 28, 29, and Ex. xxii. 17, + with Lev. xxvii. 2-8. The <em>medium</em> price of wives and servants + was the same. Comp. Hos. iii. 2, with Ex. xxi. 32. Hosea seems to + have paid one half in money and the other half in grain. Further, + the Israelitish female bought servants were <i>wives</i>, + their husbands and masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, + Judg. xix. 3, 27. If <em>buying</em> servants proves them property, + buying wives proves them property. Why not contend that the <em>wives</em> + of the ancient fathers of the faithful were their "chattels," and used as + ready change at a pinch; and thence deduce the rights of modern husbands? + Alas! Patriarchs and prophets are followed afar off! When will pious husbands + live up to their Bible privileges, and become partakers with Old Testament + worthies in the blessedness of a husband's rightful immunities! + Refusing so to do, is questioning the morality of those "good old patriarchs + and slaveholders, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." + + </p> + <p> + This use of the word buy, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. In the + Syriac, the common expression for "the espoused," is "the bought." + Even so late as the 16th century, the common record of + <i>marriages</i> in the old German Chronicles was, + "A BOUGHT B." + + </p> + <p> + The word translated <i>buy</i>, is, like other words, + modified by the nature of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, "I + have <em>gotten</em> (bought) a man of the Lord." She named him Cain, + that is <em>bought</em>. "He that heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) + understanding," Prov. xv. 32. So in Isa. xi. 11. "The Lord shall set his hand + again to recover (to <em>buy</em>) the remnant of his people." + So Ps. lxxviii. 54. "He brought them to this mountain which his right hand + had <em>purchased</em>," + + (gotten.) Jer. xiii. 4. "Take the girdle that thou hast got" (bought.) + Neh. v. 8. "We of our ability have <em>redeemed</em> (bought) our brethren + that were sold to the heathen." Here "<i>bought</i>" is + not applied to persons reduced to servitude, but to those taken + <em>out</em> of it. Prov. 8. 22. "The Lord possessed (bought) me in the + beginning of his way." Prov. xix. 8. "He that + <i>getteth</i> (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." + Finally, to <i>buy</i> is a <em>secondary</em> meaning + of the Hebrew word Kānā. + + </p> + <p> + Even at this day the word <i>buy</i> is used to describe + the procuring of servants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West + Indies, where slaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still "bought." + This is the current word in West India newspapers. Ten years + since servants were "<i>bought</i>" in New-York, as really + as in Virginia, yet the different senses in which the word was used in the + two states, put no man in a quandary. Under the system of legal + <i>indenture</i> in Illinois, servants now are + "<i>bought.</i>"<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN5"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN5"></a> Until + recently immigrants to this country were "bought" in great numbers. By + voluntary contract they engaged to work a given time to pay for their passage. + This class of persons called "redemptioners," consisted at one time + of thousands. Multitudes are "bought" <em>out</em> of slavery by + themselves or others. Under the same roof with the writer is a "servant bought + with money." A few weeks since, she was a slave; when "bought" + she was a slave no longer. Alas! for our leading politicians if "buying" + men makes them "chattels." The Whigs say that Benton and + Rives are "bought" by the administration; and the other party, that + Clay and Webster are "bought" by the Bank. The histories of the + revolution tell us that Benedict Arnold was "bought" by British gold. + When a northern clergyman marries a rich southern widow, country + gossip thus hits off the indecency, "The cotton bags <em>bought</em> him." + Sir Robert Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever will + pay it, can <em>buy</em> him," and John Randolph said, "The northern + delegation is in the market, give me money enough, and I can <em>buy</em> + them;" both meant just what they said. The temperance publications tell us + that candidates for office <em>buy</em> men with whiskey; and the oracles + of street tattle that the court, district attorney, and jury, in the + + late trial of Robinson were <em>bought</em>, yet we have no floating + visions of "chattels personal," man auctions, or coffles. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN5"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN5">A</a>: The + following statute is now in force in the free state of Illinois—No + negro, mulatto, or Indian shall at any time <em>purchase</em> any servant + other than of their own complexion: and if any of the persons aforesaid shall + presume to <em>purchase</em> a white servant, such servant shall + immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and taken. + </p> + <p> + The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to + the use of "buy" and "bought with money." Gen, xlvii. 18-26. + The Egyptians proposed to Joseph to become servants. When the + bargain was closed, Joseph said, "Behold I have <em>bought you</em> this + day," and yet it is plain that neither party regarded the persons + <em>bought</em> as articles of property, but merely as bound to labor on + certain conditions, to pay for their support during the famine. The idea + attached by both parties to "buy us," and "behold I have bought + you," was merely that of service voluntarily offered, and secured by + contract, in return for <em>value received</em>, and not at all that the + Egyptians were bereft of their personal ownership, and made articles of + property. And this buying of <em>services</em> (in this case it was but + one-fifth part) is called in Scripture usage, <i>buying the + persons</i>. This case claims special notice, as it is the only one where + the whole transaction of buying servants is detailed—the preliminaries, + the process, the mutual acquiescence, and the permanent relation resulting + therefrom. In all other instances, the <em>mere fact</em> is stated + without particulars. In this case, the whole process is laid open. (1.) The + persons "bought," <em>sold themselves</em>, and of their own accord. + (2.) Obtaining permanently the <em>services</em> of persons, or even a + portion of them, is called "buying" those persons. The objector, at the + outset, takes it for granted, that servants were bought of <em>third</em> + persons; and thence infers that they were articles of property. Both the + alleged fact and the inference are sheer <em>assumptions</em>. No instance + is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in which a <em>master sold his + servant</em>. That servants who were "bought" <em>sold themselves</em> + is a fair inference from various passages of Scripture. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_buy_selves"></a> + In Leviticus xxv. 47, the case of the Israelite, who became the + servant of the stranger, the words are, "If he SELL HIMSELF unto + the stranger." The <em>same word</em>, and the same <em>form</em> of + the word, which, in verse 47, is rendered <i>sell + himself</i>, is in verse 39 of the same chapter, rendered + <i>be sold</i>; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is + rendered "be sold." "And there ye shall BE SOLD unto your enemies + for bond-men and bond-women and NO MAN SHALL BUY YOU." + How could they "<em>be sold</em>" without <em>being bought</em>? Our + translation makes it nonsense. The word + Mākar rendered "be sold" is used + here in the Hithpael conjugation, which is generally reflexive in its + force, and, like the middle voice in Greek, represents what an individual + + does for himself, and should manifestly have been rendered, + "ye shall <i>offer yourselves</i> for sale, and there + shall be no purchaser." For a clue to Scripture usage on this point, see + 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25—"Thou hast <i>sold thyself</i> + to work evil." "There was none like to Ahab that + <i>sold himself</i> to work wickedness."—2 Kings + xvii. 17. "They used divination and enchantments, and + <i>sold themselves</i> to do evil."—Isa. l. 1. "For + your iniquities have ye <i>sold yourselves</i>." + Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have <i>sold yourselves</i> FOR NOUGHT, + and ye shall be redeemed without money." See also, Jer. xxxiv. 14—Romans + vii. 14, vi. 16—John viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians, + already quoted. In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, + it is generally stated that they were bought of <em>third</em> persons. + If <i>servants</i> were bought of third persons, it is + strange that no <em>instance</em> of it is on record. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_rights"></a></h3> + <p> + II.—THE LEADING DESIGN OF THE LAWS RELATING TO + SERVANTS, WITH THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO THEM. + + </p> + <p> + The general object of the laws defining the relations of master + and servant, was the good of both parties—more especially the good + of the <em>servants</em>. While the master's interests were guarded from + injury, those of the servants were <em>promoted</em>. These laws made a + merciful provision for the poorer classes, both of the Israelites and + Strangers, not laying on burdens, but lightening them—they were a grant + of <em>privileges</em> and <em>favors</em>. + + </p> + <p> + I. No servant from the Strangers, could remain in the family of + an Israelite without becoming a proselyte. Compliance with this + condition was the <em>price of the privilege</em>.—Gen. xvii. 9-14, + 23, 27. + + </p> + <p> + II. Excommunication from the family was a PUNISHMENT.—Gen. + xxi. 14. Luke xvi. 2-4. + + </p> + <p> + III. Every Hebrew servant could COMPEL his master to keep him + after the six years contract had expired. This shows that the system + was framed to advance the interests and gratify the wishes of the + servant quite as much as those of the master. If the servant + <em>demanded</em> it, the law <em>obliged</em> the master to retain + him, however little he might need his services. Deut. xv. 12-17. Ex. xxi. 2-6. + + </p> + <p> + IV. The rights and privileges guarantied by law to all servants. + + </p> + <p> + 1. <em>They were admitted into covenant with God.</em> Deut. xxix. + 10-13. + + </p> + <p> + 2. <em>They were invited guests at all the national and family + festivals.</em> Ex. xii. 43-44; Deut. xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16. + + </p> + <p> + 3. <em>They were statedly instructed in morality and religion.</em> + Deut. xxxi. 10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35; 2 Chron. xvii. 8-9. + + </p> + <p> + 4. <em>They were released from their regular labor nearly</em> ONE HALF + OF THE WHOLE TIME. During which they had their entire support, + and the same instruction that was provided for the other members of + the Hebrew community. + + </p> + <p> + (a.) The Law secured to them the <em>whole of every seventh year;</em> + Lev. xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who were servants during the + entire period between the jubilees, <em>eight whole years,</em> including + the jubilee year, of unbroken rest. + + </p> + <p> + (b.) <em>Every seventh day.</em> This in forty-two years, the eight being + subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just <em>six years.</em></p> + <p> + (c.) <em>The three annual festivals.</em> The <em>Passover</em>, + which commenced on the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven days, + Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which began on the 6th day + of the 3d month, and lasted seven days. Lev. xvi. 10, 11. The + Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the 7th + month, and lasted eight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. xxiii. 34-39. + As all met in one place, much time would be spent on the journey. + Cumbered caravans move slowly. After their arrival, a day or two + would be requisite for divers preparations before the celebration, besides + some time at the close of it, in preparations for return. If we + assign three weeks to each festival—including the time spent on the + journeys, and the delays before and after the celebration, together + with the <em>festival week</em>, it will be a small allowance for the + cessation of their regular labor. As there were three festivals in the year, + the main body of the servants would be absent from their stated employments + at least <em>nine weeks annually</em>, which would amount in forty-two + years, subtracting the Sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days. + + </p> + <p> + (d.) <em>The new moons.</em> The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus + says that the Jews always kept <em>two</em> days for the new moon. See + Calmet on the Jewish Calendar, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 + Sam. xx. 18, 19, 27. This in forty-two years, would be two years + 280 days. + + </p> + <p> + (e.) <em>The feast of trumpets</em>. On the first day of the seventh + month, and of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25. + + </p> + <p> + (f.) <em>The atonement day</em>. On the tenth of the seventh month. + Lev. xxiii. 27. + + </p> + <p> + These two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not + reckoned above. + + </p> + <p> + Thus it appears that those who continued servants during the period between + the jubilees, were by law released from their labor, TWENTY-THREE YEARS AND + SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, + and those who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. + In this calculation, besides making a donation of all the + <em>fractions</em> to the objector, we have left out those numerous + <em>local</em> festivals to which frequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. + 19; I Sam. ix. etc., and the various <em>family</em> festivals, such as at + the weaning of children; at marriages; at sheep shearings; at circumcisions; + at the making of covenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in + 1 Sam. xx. 28, 29. Neither have we included the festivals instituted at a + later period of the Jewish history. The feast of Purim, Esth. ix. 28, 29; and + of the Dedication, which lasted eight days. John x. 22; 1 Mac. + iv. 59. + + </p> + <p> + Finally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time + which, if distributed, would be almost ONE HALF OF THE DAYS IN + EACH YEAR. Meanwhile, they were supported, and furnished with + opportunities of instruction. If this time were distributed over + <em>every day</em>, the servants would have to themselves nearly + <em>one half of each day</em>. + + </p> + <p> + THIS IS A REGULATION OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS + CLAIMED BY SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN + SLAVERY. + + </p> + <p> + V. The servant was protected by law equally with the other members of the + community. + + </p> + <p> + Proof.—"Judge righteously between every man and his neighbor, + and THE STRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM." "Ye shall not RESPECT + PERSONS in judgement, but ye shall hear the SMALL as well as + the great." Deut. i. 16, 17. Also Lev. xxiv. 22. "Ye shall have + one manner of law as well for the STRANGER, as for one of your own + country." So Numb. xv. 29. "Ye shall have ONE LAW for him that + sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children + + of Israel and for the STRANGER that sojourneth among them." + Deut. xxvii. 19. "Cursed be he that PERVERTETH THE JUDGMENT + OF THE STRANGER." + + </p> + <p> + VI. The Mosaic system enjoined the greatest affection and kindness + toward servants, foreign as well as Jewish. + + </p> + <p> + Lev. xix. 34. "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto + you as one born among you, and thou shall love him as thyself." Also + Deut. x. 17, 19. "For the Lord your God * * REGARDETH NOT + PERSONS. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and + LOVETH THE STRANGER, in giving him food and raiment, + LOVE YE THEREFORE THE STRANGER." So Ex. xxii. 21. "Thou + shalt neither vex a STRANGER nor oppress him." Ex. xxiii. 9. "Thou + shalt not oppress a STRANGER, for ye know the heart of a stranger." + Lev. xxv. 35, 36. "If thy brother be waxen poor thou shalt relieve + him, yea, though he be a STRANGER or a sojourner, that he may live + with thee, take thou no usury of him or increase, but fear thy God." + Could this same stranger be taken by one that feared his God, and + held as a slave, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights? + + </p> + <p> + VII. Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in all + civil and religious rights. Num. xv. 15, 16, 29; ix. 14. Deut. i. + 16, 17. Lev. xxiv. 22. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_vol"></a></h3> + <p> + III.—DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, + OR WERE THEY MADE SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS? + + </p> + <p> + We argue that they became servants <em>of their own accord</em>. + + </p> + <p> + I. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was + to abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with + God<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN6"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN6"></a>, be circumcised in + + token of it, bound to keep the Sabbath, the Passover, the Pentecost, + and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in the + moral and ceremonial law. Were the servants <em>forced</em> through all + these processes? Was the renunciation of idolatry <em>compulsory</em>? + Were they <em>dragged</em> into covenant with God? Were they seized and + circumcised by <em>main strength</em>? Were they <em>compelled</em> + mechanically to chew, and swallow the flesh of the Paschal lamb, while they + abhorred the institution, spurned the laws that enjoined it, detested its + author and its executors, and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance + which it commemorated, bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the + day of its consummation? Were they <em>driven</em> from all parts of the + land three times in the year to the annual festivals? Were they + drugged with instruction which they nauseated? Goaded through a + round of ceremonies, to them senseless and disgusting mummeries; + and drilled into the tactics of a creed rank with loathed abominations? + We repeat it, to became a <i>servant</i>, was to become + a <i>proselyte</i>. And + did God authorize his people to make proselytes, at the point of the + sword? by the terror of pains and penalties? by converting men into + <em>merchandise</em>? Were <i>proselyte and + chattel</i> synonymes, in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a + <em>thing</em> before taken into covenant with God? Was this the + stipulated condition of adoption, and the sole passport to the communion of + the saints? + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN6"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN6">A</a>: Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven + hundred years ago, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the + head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: + + </p> + <p> + "Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be + purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the + covenant." + + </p> + <p> + "But he that is in the <em>house</em> is entered on the eighth day, and he + that is bought with money, on the day on which his master receives him, unless + the slave be <em>unwilling</em>. For if the master receive a grown slave, + and he be <em>unwilling</em>, his master is to bear with him, to seek to + win him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year. After + which, should he <em>refuse</em> so long, it is forbidden to keep him + longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers from + whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other than the + worship of a willing heart"—Mamon, Hilcoth Mileth, Chap. 1st, Sec. 8th. + + </p> + <p> + The ancient Jewish Doctors assert that the servant from the Strangers who at + the close of his probationary year, refused to adopt the Jewish religion and + was on that account sent back to his own people, received a <em>full + compensation</em> for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. But + that <em>postponement</em> of the circumcision of the foreign servant + for a year (<em>or even at all</em> after he had + entered the family of an Israelite), of which the Mishnic doctors + speak, seems to have been <em>a mere usage</em>. We + find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system. Circumcision was + manifestly a rite strictly <em>initiatory</em>. Whether it was a rite + merely <em>national</em> or <em>spiritual</em>, + or <em>both</em>, comes not within the scope of + this inquiry. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_vol_run"></a> + II. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, + 16, "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is + escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even + among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates + where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him." + + </p> + <p> + As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize + + the <em>right</em> of the master to hold him; his <em>fleeing</em> + shows his <em>choice</em>—proclaims + his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall not + force him back and thus recognize the <em>right</em> of the master to hold + him in such a condition as induces him to flee to others for protection." + It may be said that this command referred only to the servants + of <em>heathen</em> masters in the surrounding nations. We answer, the + terms of the command are unlimited. But the objection, if valid, would + merely shift the pressure of the difficulty to another point. Did God + require them to protect the <i>free choice</i> of a + <em>single</em> servant from the heathen, and yet <em>authorize</em> + the same persons, to crush the free choice of <em>thousands</em> of + servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A <em>foreign</em> servant + flees to the Israelites; God says, "He shall dwell with thee, in that place + which <em>he shall choose</em>, in one of thy gates where it + <em>liketh him</em> best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead + of coming into Israel of his own accord, had been <em>dragged</em> in by + some kidnapper who <em>bought</em> him of his master, and + <em>forced</em> him into a condition against his will; would He who + forbade such treatment of the stranger, who <em>voluntarily</em> came + into the land, sanction the <em>same</em> treatment of the <em>same + person</em>, provided in <em>addition</em> to this last outrage, + the <em>previous</em> one had been committed of forcing him into the + nation against his will? To commit violence on the free choice of a + <em>foreign</em> servant is forsooth a horrible enormity, PROVIDED you + <em>begin</em> the violence <em>after</em> he has come among you. But + if you commit the <em>first act</em> on the <i>other side + of the line</i>; if you begin the outrage by buying him from a third person + against his will, and then tear him from home, drag him across the line into + the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave—ah! that alters the case, + and you may perpetrate the violence now with impunity! Would + <em>greater</em> favor have been shown to this new comer than to the old + residents—those who had been servants in Jewish families perhaps for a + generation? Were the Israelites commanded to exercise toward <em>him</em>, + uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and kindness denied to the + multitudes who <em>were</em> circumcised, and <em>within</em> the + covenant? But, the objector finds small gain to his argument on the + supposition that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the + surrounding nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a + condition against their wills. In that case, the surrounding nations would + adopt retaliatory measures, and become so many asylums for Jewish fugitives. + As these nations were not only on every side of them, but in their midst, such + + a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men whose condition + was a constant counteraction of will. Besides the same command + which protected the servant from the power of his foreign <em>master</em>, + protected him equally from the power of an <em>Israelite</em>. It was not, + "Thou shalt not deliver him unto his <em>master</em>," but "he shall dwell + with thee, in that place which <em>he shall choose</em> in one of thy + gates where it liketh <em>him</em> best." Every Israelite was forbidden to + put him in any condition <em>against his will</em>. What was this but a + proclamation, that all who <em>chose</em> to live in the land and obey + the laws, were left to their own free will, to dispose of their services at + such a rate, to such persons and in such places as they pleased? Besides, + grant that this command prohibited the sending back of <em>foreign</em> + servants merely, there was no law requiring the return of servants who had + escaped from the <em>Israelites</em>. <em>Property</em> lost, and + <em>cattle</em> escaped, they were required to return, but not escaped + servants. These verses contain 1st, a command, "Thou shall not deliver," + &c., 2d, a declaration of the fugitive's right of <em>free + choice</em>, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own + discretion; and 3d, a command guarding this right, namely, "Thou shalt not + oppress him," as though God had said, "If you restrain him from exercising + his <em>own choice</em>, as to the place and condition of his residence, + it is <i>oppression</i>." + + </p> + <p> + III. We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar + opportunities and facilities for escape. Three times every year, all + the males over twelve years, were required to attend the national + feasts. They were thus absent from their homes not less than three + weeks at each time, making nine weeks annually. As these caravans + moved over the country, were there military scouts lining the + way, to intercept deserters?—a corporal's guard at each pass of the + mountains, sentinels pacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring + the defiles? The Israelites must have had some safe contrivance + for taking their "<em>slaves</em>" three times in a year to Jerusalem + and back. When a body of slaves is moved any distance in our + <em>republic</em>, they are hand-cuffed and chained together, to keep them + from running away, or beating their drivers' brains out. Was this the + <em>Mosaic</em> plan, or an improvement introduced by Samuel, or was it + left for the wisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not + less venerable and biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and + transported in bundles, or caged up, and trundled on wheels to and + fro, and while at the Holy City, "lodged in jail for safe keeping," + + the Sanhedrim appointing special religious services for their benefit, + and their "drivers" officiating at "ORAL instruction." Mean while, what + became of the sturdy <i>handmaids</i> left at home? What + hindered them from marching off in a body? Perhaps the Israelitish matrons + stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while the young ladies scoured + the country, as mounted rangers, picking up stragglers by day, and patrolled + the streets, keeping a sharp look-out at night. + + </p> + <p> + IV. Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance of + various rites necessarily VOLUNTARY. + + </p> + <p> + Suppose the servants from the heathen had upon entering Jewish + families, refused circumcision; if <em>slaves</em>, how simple the process + of emancipation! Their <em>refusal</em> did the job. Or, suppose they had + refused to attend the annual feasts, or had eaten unleavened bread + during the Passover, or compounded the ingredients of the anointing + oil, they would have been "cut off from the people;" + <i>excommunicated</i>. + + </p> + <p> + V. We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs + from the impossibility of their having been held against their wills. + Abraham's servants are an illustration. At one time he had three + hundred and eighteen <i>young men</i> "born in his house," + and many more <em>not</em> born in his house. His servants of all ages, + were probably MANY THOUSANDS. How Abraham and Sarah contrived to hold fast + so many thousand servants against their wills, we are left quite in + the dark. The most natural supposition is that the Patriarch and his + wife <em>took turns</em> in surrounding them! The neighboring tribes, + instead of constituting a picket guard to hem in his servants, would have + been far more likely to sweep them and him into captivity, as they + did Lot and his household. Besides, there was neither "Constitution" nor + "compact," to send back Abraham's fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce + upon them, nor gentleman-kidnappers, suing for his patronage, volunteering + to howl on their track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging their + "honor" to hunt down and "deliver up," <em>provided</em> they had a + description of the "flesh-marks," and were suitably stimulated by + <em>pieces of silver</em>. Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient + in all the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand-cuffs, + foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these + patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, since he faithfully trained + "his household to do justice and judgment," though so deplorably destitute of + the needful aids. + + </p> + <p> + VI. We infer that servants were voluntary, as there is no instance + of an Israelitish master SELLING a servant. Abraham had thousands + of servants, but seems never to have sold one. Isaac "grew until he + became very great," and had "great store of servants." Jacob's + youth was spent in the family of Laban, where he lived a servant + twenty-one years. Afterward he had a large number of servants. + Joseph sent for Jacob to come into Egypt, "thou and thy children, + and thy children's children, and thy flocks and thy herds, and ALL + THAT THOU HAST." Jacob took his flocks and herds but <em>no servants</em>. + Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 16. They doubtless, served under their <em>own + contracts</em>, and when Jacob went into Egypt, they <em>chose</em> to + stay in their own country. The government might sell <em>thieves</em>, if + they had no property, until their services had made good the injury, and paid + the legal fine. Ex. xxii. 3. But <em>masters</em> seem to have had no + power to sell their <em>servants</em>. To give the master a + <em>right</em> to sell his servant, would annihilate the servant's right + of choice in his own disposal; but says the objector, "to give the master a + right to <em>buy</em> a servant, equally annihilates the servant's + <em>right of choice</em>." Answer. It is one thing to have a right to buy + a man, and a different thing to have a right to buy him of + <em>another</em> man<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN7"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN7"></a>. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN7"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN7">A</a>: There is no evidence that + masters had the power to dispose even the <i>services</i> + of their servants, as men hire out their laborers whom they employ by the + year; but whether they had or not, affects not the argument. + </p> + <p> + Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females + were bought of their <em>fathers</em>. But their purchase as + <em>servants</em> was their betrothal as wives. Ex. xxi. 7, 8. "If a man + sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the + men-servants do. If she please not her master WHO HATH BETROTHED + HER TO HIMSELF, he shall let her be + redeemed."<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN8"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN8"></a></p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN8"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN8">B</a>: The comment of Maimonides on this passage + is as follows: "A Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid + himself under obligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she + was fit to be + betrothed."—<em>Maimonides—Hilcoth—Obedim</em>, + Ch. IV. Sec. XI. Jarchi, on the same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse + her and take her to be his wife, for the <em>money of her purchase</em> + is the money of her espousal." + </p> + <p> + VII. We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in COMMENCING + his service, because he was pre-eminently so IN CONTINUING it. + If, at the year of release, it was the servant's <em>choice</em> to remain + with his master, law required his ear to be bored by the judges of the + land, thus making it impossible for him to be held against his will. + + Yea more, his master was <em>compelled</em> to keep him, however much he + might wish to get rid of him. + + </p> + <p> + VIII. The method prescribed for procuring servants, was an appeal + to their choice. The Israelites were commanded to offer them + a suitable inducement, and then leave them to decide. They might + neither seize them by <em>force</em>, nor frighten them by + <em>threats</em>, nor wheedle them by false pretences, nor + <em>borrow</em> them, nor <em>beg</em> them; but they + were commanded to buy them<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN9"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN9"></a>; that is, they + were to recognize the <em>right</em> of the individuals to + <em>dispose</em> of their own services, and their right to + <em>refuse all offers</em>, and thus oblige those who made them, + <em>to do their own work</em>. Suppose all, with one accord, had + <em>refused</em> to become servants, what provision did the Mosaic law + make for such an emergency? NONE. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN9"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN9">A</a>: The case of thieves, whose + services were sold until they had earned enough to make restitution to the + person wronged, and to pay the legal penalty, <em>stands by itself,</em> + and has nothing to do with the condition of servants. + </p> + <p> + IX. Various incidental expressions corroborate the idea that servants + became such by their own contract. Job xli. 4, is an illustration, + "Will he (Leviathan) make a COVENANT with thee? wilt thou + take him for a SERVANT forever?" + + </p> + <p> + X. The transaction which made the Egyptians the SERVANTS OF + PHARAOH was voluntary throughout. See Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of + their own accord they came to Joseph and said, "We have not aught + left but our <em>bodies</em> and our lands; <em>buy us</em>;" then in + the 25th verse, "we will be servants to Pharaoh." + + </p> + <p> + XI. We infer the voluntariness of servants, from the fact that RICH + Strangers did not become servants. Indeed, so far were they from + becoming servants themselves, that they bought and held Jewish servants. + Lev. xxv. 47. + + </p> + <p> + XII. The sacrifices and offerings which ALL were required to + present, were to be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3. + + </p> + <p> + XIII. Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where + they were manifestly and pre-eminently VOLUNTARY. As the Prophet + Elisha. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his + <em>master</em>. The word, translated master, is the same that is so + rendered in almost every instance where masters are spoken of under the Mosaic + and patriarchal systems. Moses was the servant of Jethro. + Ex. iii. 1. Joshua was the servant of Moses. Num. xi. 28. Jacob + was the servant of Laban. Gen. xxix. 18-27. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_wages"></a></h3> + <p> + IV.—WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY? + + </p> + <p> + As the servants became and continued such of <em>their own accord</em>, + it would be no small marvel if they <em>chose</em> to work without pay. + Their becoming servants, pre-supposes <em>compensation</em> as a motive. + That they <em>were paid</em> for their labor, we argue, + + </p> + <p> + I. Because God rebuked in thunder, the sin of using the labor of + others without wages. "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, + and his chambers by wrong; THAT USETH HIS NEIGHBOR'S + SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES, and giveth him not for his work." + Jer. xxii. 13. God here testifies that to use the service of others + without wages is "unrighteousness" and pronounces his "wo" + against the doer of the "wrong." The Hebrew word + <i>Reā</i>, translated + <i>neighbor</i>, does not mean one man, or class of men, + in distinction from others, but any one with whom we have to do—all + descriptions of persons, even those who prosecute us in lawsuits and enemies + while in the act of fighting us—"As when a man riseth against his + NEIGHBOR and slayeth him." Deut. xxii. 26. "Go not forth hastily to + strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy + NEIGHBOR hath put thee to shame." Prov. xxv. 8. "Thou shalt not + bear false witness against thy NEIGHBOR." Ex. xx. 16. "If any man + come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with guile." + Ex. xxi. 14, &c. + + </p> + <p> + II. God testifies that in our duty to our fellow men, ALL THE LAW + AND THE PROPHETS hang upon this command, "Thou shalt love thy + neighbor as thyself." Our Savior, in giving this command, quoted + <i>verbatim</i> one of the laws of the + Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the same chapter, Moses + applies this law to the treatment of Strangers, "The stranger that dwelleth + with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS + THYSELF." If it be loving others <em>as</em> ourselves, to make them work + for us without pay; to rob them of food and clothing also, would be + a stronger illustration still of the law of love! + <em>Super</em>-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others + as we would have them do to us, to make them work for <em>our own</em> + good alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard saying against human + nature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, "No man ever yet + hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it." + + </p> + <p> + III. As persons became servants FROM POVERTY, we argue that + they were compensated, since they frequently owned property, and + sometimes a large amount. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave + David a princely present, "An hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred + bunches of raisins, and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle + of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1. The extent of his possessions can + be inferred from the fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he + had twenty servants. In Lev. xxv. 57-59, where a servant, reduced + to poverty, sold himself, it is declared that he may be + <i>redeemed</i>, either + by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been forced to sell himself + from poverty, he must have acquired considerable property <em>after</em> + he became a servant. If it had not been common for servants to acquire + property over which they had the control, the servant of Elisha + would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly + $3000<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN10"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN10"></a>) from Naaman, 2 Kings v. 22, 23. As it was + procured by deceit, he wished to conceal the means used in getting it; but if + servants, could "own nothing, nor acquire any thing," to embark in such + an enterprise would have been consummate stupidity. The fact of + having in his possession two talents of silver, would of itself convict + him of theft<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN11"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN11"></a>. + But since it was common for servants to own + + property he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting + special attention, and that consideration alone would have been a + strong motive to the act. His master, while rebuking him for using + such means to get the money, not only does not take it from him; but + seems to expect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would + procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. We find the servant of Saul having + money, and relieving his master in an emergency. 1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the + servant of Elah, was the <em>owner of a house</em>. + That it was somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from it's being + a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. The case of the Gibeonites, + who after becoming servants, still occupied their cities, and + remained in many respects, a distinct people for centuries; and that + of the 150,000 Canaanites, the <em>servants</em> of Solomon, who worked + out their "tribute of bond-service" in levies, periodically relieving each + other, are additional illustrations of independence in the acquisition and + ownership of property. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN10"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN10">A</a>: Though we have not sufficient data to decide + upon the <em>relative</em> value of that sum, <em>then</em> and + <em>now</em>, yet we have enough to warrant us in saying that two talents + of silver, had far more value <em>then</em> than three thousand dollars + have <em>now</em>. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN11"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN11">B</a>: Whoever heard of the slaves in our + southern states stealing a large amount of money? They "<em>know how to + take care of themselves</em>" quite too well for that. When + they steal, they are careful to do it on such a <em>small</em> scale, or + in the taking of <em>such things</em> as will make detection difficult. + No doubt they steal now and then a little, and a gaping marvel would it be if + they did not. Why should they not follow in the footsteps of their masters and + mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if, after so many lessons from + <em>proficients</em> in the art, who drive the business by + <i>wholesale</i>, they should not occasionally copy their + betters, fall into the <em>fashion</em>, and try their hand in a small + way, at a practice which is the <em>only permanent and universal</em> + business carried on around them! Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings + of high impulse, prompting to imitate the eminent pattern set before them in + the daily vocation of "Honorables" and "Excellences," and to emulate the + illustrious examples of Doctors of Divinity, and <em>Right</em> + and <em>Very Reverends</em>! Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In + his Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8, speaking of slaves, he says, "That + disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to + their <em>situation</em>, and not to any special depravity of the moral + sense. It is a problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religious + precepts against the violation of property were not framed for + HIM as well as for his slave—and whether the slave may not as + justifiably take a <i>little</i> from one who has taken + ALL from him, as he may <em>slay</em> one who would slay him?" + </p> + <p> + IV. Heirship.—Servants frequently inherited their master's property; + especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the + family. Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, + Jarha the servant of Sheshan, and the <i>husbandmen</i> + who said of their master's son, "this is the HEIR, let us kill him, and the + INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS," are illustrations; also Prov. xvii. 2—"A + wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and + SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG THE BRETHREN." + This passage gives servants precedence as heirs, even over the wives and + daughters of their masters. Did masters hold by force, and + plunder of earnings, a class of persons, from which, in frequent contingencies, + they selected both heirs for their property, and husbands + for their daughters? + + </p> + <p> + V. ALL were required to present offerings and sacrifices. Deut. + xvi. 15, 17, 2 Chron. xv. 9-11. Numb. ix. 13. Servants must have + had permanently, the means of <em>acquiring</em> property to meet these + expenditures. + + </p> + <p> + VI. Those Hebrew servants who went out at the seventh year, + were provided by law with a large stock of provisions and cattle. + Deut. xv. 11-14. "Thou shall furnish him liberally out of thy + flock, and out of thy flour, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith + the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, thou shall give + him<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN12"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN12"></a>." If + + it be said that the servants from the Strangers did not receive a like + bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of + <em>Israelitish</em> servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, + <em>they did not go out in the seventh year</em>, but continued until the + jubilee. If the fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such a + <i>gratuity</i> proves that they were robbed of their + <em>earnings</em>, it proves that the most valued class of + <em>Hebrew</em> servants were robbed of theirs also; a conclusion too + stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN12"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN12">A</a>: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is + as follows—"Thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c. "That is to + say, '<em>Loading, ye shall load him</em>,' likewise every + one of his family, with as much as he can take with him—abundant + benefits. And if it be avariciously asked, "How much must I give him?" I + say unto <em>you, not less than thirty shekels</em>, which is the + valuation of a servant, as declared in Ex. xxi. 32."—Maimonides, + Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec. 3 + </p> + <p> + VII. The servants were BOUGHT. In other words, they received + compensation in advance. Having shown, under a previous head, + that servants <em>sold themselves</em>, and of course received the + compensation for themselves, except in cases where parents hired out the time + of their children till they became of age<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN13"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN13"></a>, a mere reference to the fact + is all that is required for the purposes of this argument. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN13"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN13">B</a>: Among the + Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and boys at thirteen + years. + </p> + <p> + VIII. We find masters at one time having a large number of servants, + and afterwards none, without any intimation that they were + sold. The wages of servants would enable them to set up in business + for themselves. Jacob, after being Laban's servant for twenty-one + years, became thus an independent herdsman, and was the master + of many servants. Gen. xxx. 43, xxxii. 15. But all these servants + had left him before he went down into Egypt, having doubtless + acquired enough to commence business for themselves. Gen. xlv. + 10, 11; xlvi. 1-7, 32. + + </p> + <p> + IX. God's testimony to the character of Abraham. Gen. xviii. + 19. "For I know him that he will command his children and his + household after him, and they shall keep, THE WAY OF THE LORD + TO DO JUSTICE AND JUDGEMENT." God here testifies that Abraham + taught his servants "the way of the Lord." What was the "way of + the Lord" respecting the payment of wages where service was rendered? + "Wo unto him that useth his neighbor's service WITHOUT + WAGES!" Jer. xxii. 13. "Masters, give unto your servants that + which is JUST AND EQUAL." Col. iv. 1. "Render unto all their + + DUES." Rom. xiii. 7. "The laborer is WORTHY OF HIS HIRE." Luke + x. 7. How did Abraham teach his servants to "<em>do justice</em>" to + others? By doing injustice to them? Did he exhort them to "render to all + their dues" by keeping back <em>their own</em>? Did he teach them that + "the laborer was worthy of his hire" by robbing them of <em>theirs</em>? + Did he beget in them a reverence for honesty by pilfering all their time and + labor? Did he teach them "not to defraud" others "in any matter" + by denying them "what was just and equal?" If each of Abraham's + pupils under such a catechism did not become a very + <i>Aristides</i> in justice, then illustrious examples, + patriarchal dignity, and <em>practical</em> lessons, + can make but slow headway against human perverseness! + + </p> + <p> + X. <em>Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general + principles</em>. Out of many, we select the following: (1.) "Thou shalt not + muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," or literally, while he thresheth. + Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a general principle applied to a familiar case. + The ox representing all domestic animals. Isa. xxx. 24. A + <em>particular</em> kind of service, <em>all</em> kinds; and a law + requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal ministering to man + in a <em>certain</em> way,—a general principle of treatment covering + all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service. The object of the law was; + not merely to enjoin tenderness towards brutes, but to inculcate the duty of + rewarding those who serve us; and if such care be enjoined, by God, both + for the ample sustenance and present enjoyment <em>of a brute</em>, what + would be a meet return for the services of <em>man</em>?—MAN with + his varied wants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul says expressly, + that this principle lies at the bottom of the statute. 1 Cor. + ix. 9, 10, "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not + muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God + take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR SAKES? that + he that ploweth should plow in HOPE, and that he that thresheth in + hope should be PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE," (2.) "If thy brother be + waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve + him, YEA, THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER or a SOJOURNER that he may + live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but fear thy + God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him + thy victuals for increase." Lev. xxv. 35-37. Now, we ask, by + what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this regulation can be + made to harmonize with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT PAY? Did + God declare the poor stranger entitled to RELIEF, and in the same + + breath, authorize them to "use his services without wages;" force + him to work and ROB HIM OF HIS EARNINGS? + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_noown"></a>V.—WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL + PROPERTY? + </h3> + <p> + The discussion of this topic has already been somewhat anticipated, + but a variety of additional considerations remain to be noticed. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_noown_useprop"></a> + 1. Servants were not subjected to the uses nor liable to the contingencies + of property. (1.) They were never taken in payment for + their masters' debts, though children were sometimes taken (without + legal authority) for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; + Isa. l., 1; Matt. xviii. 25. Creditors took from debtors property of all + kinds, to satisfy their demands. Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; Prov. + xxii. 27, household furniture; Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions of + the soil; Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; Ex. xxii. 26-29, Deut. xxiv. + 10-13, Matt, v. 40, clothing; but <em>servants</em> were taken in + <em>no instance</em>. (2.) Servants were never given as pledges. Property + of all sorts was given in pledge. We find household furniture, clothing, + cattle, money, signets, and personal ornaments, with divers other articles + of property, used as pledges for value received; but no servants. + (3.) All lost PROPERTY was to be restored. Oxen, asses, sheep, + raiment, and "whatsoever lost things," are specified—servants + <em>not</em>. Deut. xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were forbidden to + return the runaway servant. Deut. xxiii. 15. (4.) The Israelites never gave + away their servants as presents. They made costly presents, of + great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of animals, merchandise, + family utensils, precious metals, grain, armor, &c. are among their + recorded <em>gifts</em>. Giving presents to superiors and persons of rank, + was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2 Chron. + xvii. 5. Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy + of Egypt, Gen. xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. + xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath + Pilezer, 2 Kings vi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 + Kings x. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, + 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no servants were given as presents—though + it was a prevailing fashion in the surrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16; + Gen. xx. 14. It may be objected that Laban GAVE handmaids to his + daughters, Jacob's wives. Without enlarging on the nature of the + + polygamy then prevalent suffice it to say that the handmaids of + wives were regarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. + That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse + upon Reuben, Gen. xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1; also by the equality of + their children with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it been + otherwise—had Laban given them as <em>articles of property</em>, + then, indeed, the example of this "good old patriarch and slaveholder," + Saint Laban, would have been a forecloser to all argument. Ah! we + remember his jealousy for <em>religion</em>—his holy indignation + when he found that his "GODS" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, + and plunged over the desert in hot pursuit, seven days, by forced + marches; how he ransacked a whole caravan, sifting the contents of + every tent, little heeding such small matters as domestic privacy, or + female seclusion, for lo! the zeal of his "IMAGES" had eaten him + up! No wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled + before the free gusts, should scud under the lee of such a + pious worthy to haul up and refit: invoking his protection, and the + benediction of his "GODS!" <a name="E4r3_noown_distprop"></a>"Again, + it may be objected that, servants + were enumerated in inventories of property. If that proves + <em>servants</em> property, it proves <em>wives</em> property. + "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy + neighbor's WIFE, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, + nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Ex. xx. 17. In + inventories of <em>mere property</em> if servants are included, it is in + such a way, as to show that they are not regarded as <em>property</em>. + See Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when the design is to show not merely the wealth, but + the <em>greatness</em> of any personage, servants are spoken of, as well + as property. In a word, if <em>riches</em> alone are spoken of, no mention + is made of servants; if <em>greatness</em>, servants and property. + Gen. xiii. 2. "And Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold." So + in the fifth verse, "And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents." In the + seventh verse servants are mentioned, "And there was a strife between the + HERDMEN of Abraham's cattle and the HERDMEN of Lot's cattle." See also Josh. + xxii. 8; Gen. xxxiv. 23; Job xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; + Job i. 3-5; Deut. viii. 12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, xxvi. 13, xxx. 43. + Jacobs's wives say to him, "All the <em>riches</em> which thou hast taken + from our father that is ours and our children's." Then follows an inventory + of property. "All his cattle," "all his goods," "the cattle of his getting." + He had a large number of servants at the time but they are not + + included with his property. Comp. Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. + 16-18. When he sent messengers to Esau, wishing to impress him + with an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him not only of + his RICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that Jacob had "oxen, and asses, + and flocks, and men-servants, and maid-servants." Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. + Yet in the present which he sent, there were no servants; though + he seems to have sought as much variety as possible. Gen. xxxii. + 14, 15; see also Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7; Gen. xxxiv. 23. As flocks and + herds were the staples of wealth, a large number of servants presupposed + large possessions of cattle, which would require many herdsmen. + When servants are spoken of in connection with <em>mere property</em>, + the terms used to express the latter do not include the former. The + Hebrew word <i>Miknĕ</i>, is an + illustration. It is derived from + <i>Kānā</i>, to + procure, to buy, and its meaning is, <i>a possession, + wealth, riches</i>. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament, + and is applied always to <em>mere property</em>, generally to domestic + animals, but never to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in + distinction from the <i>Miknĕ</i>. + <a name="E4r3_noown_gen_12_5"></a> And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot + his brother's son, and all their + SUBSTANCE that they had gathered; and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, + and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan."—Gen. xii. 5. Many + will have it, that these <em>souls</em> were a part of Abraham's + <em>substance</em> (notwithstanding the pains here taken to separate them + from it)—that they were slaves taken with him in his migration as a part + of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually or in heart, + would torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless + phrase as "<em>the souls that they had gotten</em>?" Until the slave + trade breathed its haze upon the vision of the church, and smote her with + palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, "The souls that they had + gotten." In the Targum of Onkelos<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN14"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN14"></a> it is rendered, + "The souls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Targum of + Jonathan, "The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran." In the + + Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, + the prince of Jewish commentators, "The souls whom they had + brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one of the most learned + of the Christian fathers, "The persons whom they had proselyted." + The Persian version, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the + Samaritan all render it, "All the wealth which they had gathered, + and the souls which they had made in Haran." Menochius, a commentator + who wrote before our present translation of the Bible, renders + it, "Quas de idolatraria converterant." "Those whom they + had converted from idolatry."—Paulus + Fagius<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN15"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN15"></a>. "Quas instituerant + in religione." "Those whom they had established in religion." Luke + Francke, a German commentator who lived two centuries ago. + "Quas legi subjicerant"—"Those whom they had brought to obey + the law." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN14"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN14">A</a>: The Targums are + Chaldee paraphrases of parts of the Old Testament. The Targum of Onkelas is, + for the most part, a very accurate and faithful translation of the original, + and was probably made at about the commencement of the Christian era. + The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, bears about the same date. The Targum of + Jerusalem was probably about five hundred years later. The Israelites, during + their captivity in Babylon, lost, as a body, their own language. These + translations into the Chaldee, the language which they acquired in Babylon, + were thus called for by the necessity of the case. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN15"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN15">B</a>: This eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to + England to superintend the translation of the Bible into English, under the + patronage of Henry the Eighth. He had hardly commenced the work when he died. + This was nearly a century before the date of our present + translation. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_noown_socequ"></a> + II. The condition and treatment of servants make the doctrine + that they were mere COMMODITIES, an absurdity. St. Paul's testimony + in Gal. iv. 1, shows the condition of servants: "Now I say unto you, + that the heir, so long as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A + SERVANT, though he be lord of all." That Abraham's servants were + voluntary, that their interests were identified with those of their + master's family, and that the utmost confidence was reposed in them, + is shown in their being armed.—Gen. xiv. 14, 15. When Abraham's + servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess Rebecca did not disdain + to say to him, "Drink, MY LORD," as "she hasted and let down + her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink." Laban, the brother + of Rebecca, "ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash + his feet and the men's feet that were with him!" In 1 Sam. ix. is + an account of a festival in the city of Zuph, at which Samuel presided. + None but those bidden, sat down at the feast, and only "about thirty + persons" were invited. Quite a select party!—the elite of the city. + Saul and his servant had just arrived at Zuph, and <em>both</em> of them, + at Samuel's solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. "And Samuel + took Saul and his SERVANT, and brought THEM into the PARLOR(!) + and made THEM sit in the CHIEFEST SEATS among those that were + bidden." A <em>servant</em> invited by the chief judge, ruler, and + prophet in + + Israel, to dine publicly with a select party, in company with his + master, who was at the same time anointed King of Israel! and this + servant introduced by Samuel into the PARLOR, and assigned, with his + master, to the <em>chiefest seat</em> at the table! This was + "<em>one</em> of the servants" + of Kish, Saul's father; not the steward or the chief of them—not + at all a <em>picked</em> man, but "<em>one</em> of the servants;" + <em>any</em> one that could be most easily spared, as no endowments + specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking after asses. Again: + we find Elah, the King of Israel, at a festive entertainment, in the house of + Arza, his steward, or head servant, with whom he seems to have been on terms + of familiarity.—1 Kings xvi. 8, 9. See also the intercourse between + Gideon and his servant.—Judg. vii. 10, 11. Jonathan and his + servant.—1 Sam. xiv. 1-14. Elisha and his servant.—2 Kings iv. v. + vi. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_noown_gib"></a> + III. The case of the Gibeonites. The condition of the inhabitants + of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the + Hebrew commonwealth, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of + slavery; and truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can + be gleaned from it. Milton's devils made desperate snatches at fruit + that turned to ashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under + tormenting gnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something + to ease, or even to <em>mock</em> them. But for this, it would never have + clutched at the Gibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon + cauldron, could not extract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's + self. But to the question. What was the condition of the + Gibeonites under the Israelites? (1.) <em>It was voluntary</em>. + Their own + proposition to Joshua was to become servants. Josh. ix. 8, 11. It was + accepted, but the kind of service which they should perform, was not + specified until their gross imposition came to light; they were then + assigned to menial offices in the Tabernacle. (2.) <em>They were not + domestic servants in the families of the Israelites</em>. They still + resided in their own cities, cultivated their own fields, tended their flocks + and herds, and exercised the functions of a <em>distinct</em>, though not + independent community. They were subject to the Jewish nation as + <i>tributaries</i>. So far from being distributed among + the Israelites, and their internal organization as a distinct people + abolished, they remained a separate, and, in some respects, an independent + community for many centuries. When attacked by the Amorites, they applied to + the Israelites as confederates for aid—it was rendered, their enemies + routed, and themselves left unmolested in their cities. Josh. x. 6-18. + + Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and God sent upon Israel + a three years' famine for it. David inquired of the Gibeonites, "What + shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the atonement?" + At their demand, he delivered up to them, seven of Saul's descendants. + 2 Sam. xxi. 1-9. The whole transaction was a formal recognition + of the Gibeonites as a distinct people. There is no intimation + that they served families, or individuals of the Israelites, but only the + "house of God," or the Tabernacle. This was established first at + Gilgal, a day's journey from their cities; and then at Shiloh, nearly + two day's journey from them; where it continued about 350 years. + During this period, the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and + territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent at any + one time in attendance on the Tabernacle. Wherever allusion is made + to them in the history, the main body are spoken of as <em>at home</em>. + It is preposterous to suppose that all the inhabitants of these four cities + could find employment at the Tabernacle. One of them "was a great + city, as one of the royal cities;" so large, that a confederacy of five + kings, apparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary + for its destruction. It is probable that the men were divided into + classes, ministering in rotation—each class a few days or weeks + at a time. This service was their <i>national tribute</i> + to the Israelites, for the privilege of residence and protection under their + government. No service seems to have been required of the + <em>females</em>. As these Gibeonites were Canaanites, and as they had + greatly exasperated the Israelites by impudent imposition, and lying, we might + assuredly expect that they would reduce <em>them</em> to the condition of + chattels if there was <em>any</em> case in which God permitted them to do + so. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_noown_Egy"></a> + IV. Throughout the Mosaic system, God warns the Israelites against + holding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the + Egyptians. How often are they pointed back to the grindings of their + prison-house! What motives to the exercise of justice and kindness + towards their servants, are held out to their fears in threatened + judgments; to their hopes in promised good; and to all within them + that could feel; by those oft repeated words of tenderness and terror! + "For ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt"—waking anew the + memory of tears and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them. + + </p> + <p> + God's denunciations against the bondage of Egypt make it incumbent + on us to ascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, + and what they retained. + + </p> + <p> + EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) The Israelites were not + dispersed among the families of Egypt<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN16"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN16"></a>, but formed a + separate community. Gen. xlvi. 35. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi. 7; ii. + 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5. (2.) They had the exclusive possession of the + land of Goshen<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN17"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN17"></a>. Gen. xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, + 23, 27. (3.) They lived in permanent dwellings. These were + <em>houses</em>, not <em>tents</em>. In Ex. xii. 6, 22, the two side + <em>posts</em>, and the upper door <em>posts</em>, and the lintel of + the houses are mentioned. Each family seems to have occupied a house + <em>by itself</em>,—Acts vii. 20. Ex. xii. 4—and + judging from the regulation about the eating of the Passover, they + could hardly have been small ones, Ex. xii. 4, probably contained separate + apartments, and places for concealment. Ex. ii. 2, 3; Acts + vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex. xii. 11. + To have their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19, and xiv. 11. + (4.) They owned "a mixed multitude of flocks and herds," and + "very much cattle." Ex. xii. 32, 37, 38. (5.) They had their own + form of government, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, + and their internal organization throughout, though still a province of + Egypt, and <i>tributary</i> to it. Ex. ii. 1; + xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16, 18. (6.) They seem to have had in + a considerable measure, the disposal of their own time,—Ex. xxiii. 4; + iii. 16, 18, xii. 6; ii. 9; and iv. 27, 29-31. And to have practiced the fine + arts. Ex. xxxii. 4; xxxv. 22-35. (7.) They were all armed. Ex. xxxii. 27. + (8.) They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem + to have regarded them as inviolable. No intimation is given that the + Egyptians dispossessed them of their habitations, or took away their + flocks, or herds, or crops, or implements of agriculture, or any article + of property. (9.) All the females seem to have known something + of domestic refinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, + and skilled in the working of fine fabrics. Ex. xv. 20; xxxv. 25, 26. + (10.) Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males. + Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could he inferred; + + the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the + payment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a + supposition. Ex. ii. 29. (11.) So far from being fed upon a given + allowance, their food was abundant, and of great variety. "They + sat by the flesh-pots," and "did eat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3; + xxiv. 1; xvii. 5; iv. 29; vi. 14; "they did eat fish freely, and + cucumbers, and melons, and leeks, and onions, and garlic." Num. + xi. 4, 5; x. 18; xx. 5. (12.) The great body of the people were + not in the service of the Egyptians. (a.) The extent and variety + of their own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their + crops as would provide them with bread, and such care of their + immense flocks and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, + must have furnished constant employment for the main + body of the nation. (b.) During the plague of darkness, God informs + us that "ALL the children of Israel had light in their dwellings." + We infer that they were <em>there</em> to enjoy it. (c.) It seems + improbable that the making of brick, the only service named during the + latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could have furnished permanent + employment for the bulk of the nation. See also Ex. iv. 29-31. + Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it was as + now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given + quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively but a small + portion of the nation would be absent <em>at any one time</em>. Probably + one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the + Israelites in common with the Egyptians. Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. + Instead of taking it from their <em>crops</em>, (Goshen being better for + <em>pasturage</em>) they exacted it of them in brick making; and it is + quite probable that labor was exacted only from the <em>poorer</em> + Israelites, the wealthy being able to pay their tribute in money. + Ex. iv. 27-31. Contrast this bondage of Egypt with American slavery. Have our + slaves "very much cattle," and "a mixed multitude of flocks and + herds?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own, "sit by the + flesh-pots," "eat fish freely," and "eat bread to the full?" Do they + live in a separate community, in their distinct tribes, under their own + rulers, in the exclusive occupation of an extensive tract of country + for the culture of their crops, and for rearing immense herds of their + own cattle—and all these held inviolable by their masters? Are + our female slaves free from exactions of labor and liabilities of + outrage? or when employed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish + + woman by the king's daughter? Have they the disposal of their own + time and the means for cultivating social refinements, for practising + the fine arts, and for personal improvement? THE ISRAELITES + UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND + PRIVILEGES. True, "all the service wherein they made them serve + was with rigor." But what was this when compared with the incessant + toil of American slaves, the robbery of all their time and earnings, + and even the power to "own any thing, or acquire any thing?" + a "quart of corn a-day," the legal allowance of + food<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN18"><sup>C</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN18"></a>! + their <em>only</em> clothing for one half the year, "<em>one</em> + shirt and <em>one</em> pair of + pantaloons<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN19"><sup>D</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN19"></a>!" <em>two hours and a half only</em>, for rest and refreshment + in the twenty-four<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN20"><sup>E</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN20"></a>!—their dwellings, + <em>hovels</em>, unfit for human residence, with but one apartment, where + both sexes and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the + field. Add to this, the ignorance, and degradation; the daily sundering of + kindred, the revelries of lust, the lacerations and baptisms of blood, + sanctioned by law, and patronized by public sentiment. What was the bondage of + Egypt when compared with this? And yet for her oppression of the poor, + God smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she + passed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, + knew her no more. Ah! "I have seen the afflictions of my people, + and I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them." + HE DID COME, and Egypt sank a ruinous heap, and her blood closed + over her. If such was God's retribution for the oppression of + heathen Egypt, of how much sorer punishment shall a Christian people + be thought worthy, who cloak with religion a system, in comparison + with which the bondage of Egypt dwindles to nothing? Let + those believe who can that God commissioned his people to rob + others of <em>all</em> their rights, while he denounced against them wrath + to the uttermost, if they practised the <em>far lighter</em> oppression of + Egypt—which robbed it's victims of only the least and cheapest of their + rights, and left the females unplundered even of these. What! Is God + divided against himself? When He had just turned Egypt into a + funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied dead, and + his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of her torment + went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did He + + license the victims of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As + <em>Lawgiver</em> did he <em>create</em> a system tenfold more + grinding than that for which he had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and + overwhelmed his princes, and his hosts, till "hell was moved to meet them at + their coming?" + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN16"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN16">A</a>: The Egyptians + evidently had <i>domestic</i> servants living in their + families; these may have been slaves; allusion is made to them in Ex. ix. 14, + 20, 21. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN17"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN17">B</a>: The land of Goshen was a large tract + of country, east of the Pelusian arm of the Nile, and between it and the head + of the Red Sea, and the lower border of Palestine. The probable centre of that + portion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly have been less than sixty + miles from the city. The border of Goshen nearest to Egypt must have + been many miles distant. See "Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt," an able + article by Professor Robinson, in the Biblical Repository for + October, 1832. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN18"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN18">C</a>: Law of N.C. Haywood's Manual 524-5. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN19"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN19">D</a>: Law of La. Martin's Digest, + 610. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN20"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN20">E</a>: Law of La. Act of July 7, + 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12. + </p> + <p> + We now proceed to examine various objections which will doubtless + be set in array against all the foregoing conclusions. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_OBJ"></a>OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. + </h3> + <p> + The advocates of slavery find themselves at their wits end in + pressing the Bible into their service. Every movement shows them + hard-pushed. Their ever-varying shifts, their forced constructions, + and blind guesswork, proclaim both their <em>cause</em> desperate, and + themselves. The Bible defences thrown around slavery by professed + ministers of the Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and + historical facts it were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, ignorance, + or blasphemy, predominates in the compound; each strives so + lustily for the mastery it may be set down a drawn battle. How + often has it been bruited that the color of the negro is the + <i>Cain-mark</i>, propagated downward. Cain's posterity + started an opposition to the ark, forsooth, and rode out the flood with flying + streamers! Why should not a miracle be wrought to point such an argument, and + fill out for slaveholders a Divine title-deed, vindicating the ways of God + to man? + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_Canaan"></a></h3> + <p> + OBJECTION 1. "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he + be unto his brethren." Gen. ix. 25. + + </p> + <p> + This prophecy of Noah is the <i>vade mecum</i> of slaveholders, and + they never venture abroad without it; it is a pocket-piece for sudden + occasion, a keepsake to dote over, a charm to spell-bind opposition, + and a magnet to draw around their standard "whatsoever worketh + abomination or maketh a lie." But "cursed be Canaan" is a poor + drug to ease a throbbing conscience—a mocking lullaby, to unquiet + tossings, and vainly crying "Peace be still," where God wakes war, + and breaks his thunders. Those who justify negro slavery by the + curse of Canaan, <em>assume</em> all the points in debate. (1.) That + <em>slavery</em> was prophesied rather than mere <em>service</em> + to others, and <em>individual</em> bondage rather than + <em>national</em> subjection and tribute. (2.) That the + <em>prediction</em> of crime <em>justifies</em> it; at least absolving + those whose crimes fulfill it, if not transforming the crimes into + <em>virtues</em>. How piously the Pharoahs + + might have quoted the prophecy <em>"Thy seed shall be a stranger + in a land that is not theirs, and they shall afflict there four hundred + years."</em> And then, what <em>saints</em> were those that crucified + the Lord of glory! (3.) That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas + Africa was peopled from Egypt and Ethiopia, and they were settled + by Mizraim and Cush. For the location and boundaries of + Canaan's posterity, see Gen. x. 15-19. So a prophecy of evil to + one people, is quoted to justify its infliction upon another. Perhaps + it may be argued that Canaan includes all Ham's posterity. If so, + the prophecy is yet unfulfilled. The other sons of Ham settled + Egypt and Assyria, and, conjointly with Shem, Persia, and afterward, + to some extent, the Grecian and Roman empires. The history + of these nations gives no verification of the prophecy. Whereas, + the history of Canaan's descendants for more than three thousand + years, records its fulfilment. First, they were put to tribute by the + Israelites; then by the Medes and Persians; then by the Macedonians, + Grecians and Romans, successively; and finally, were subjected + by the Ottoman dynasty, where they yet remain. Thus Canaan + has been for ages the servant mainly of Shem and Japhet, and + secondarily of the other sons of Ham. It may still be objected, that + though Canaan alone is <em>named</em> in the curse, yet the 23d and 24th + verses show the posterity of Ham in general to be meant. "And + Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told + his two brethren without." "And Noah awoke from his wine, and + knew what his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said," &c. It + is argued that this "<em>younger</em> son" can not be <em>Canaan</em>, + as he was the <em>grandson</em> of Noah, and therefore it must be + <em>Ham.</em> We answer, whoever that "<em>younger son</em>" was, + <em>Canaan</em> alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word + <i>Ben</i>, signifies son, grandson, or + <em>any</em> of <em>one</em> the posterity of an individual. + "<em>Know ye Laban the SON of Nahor?</em>" Laban was the + <em>grandson</em> of Nahor. Gen. xxix. 5. "<em>Mephibosheth the SON of + Saul</em>." 2 Sam. xix. 24. Mephibosheth was the <em>grandson</em> of + Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. "<i>There is a SON born to + Naomi.</i>" Ruth iv. 17. This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law + of Naomi. "<em>Let seven men of his (Saul's) SONS be delivered + unto us.</em>" 2 Sam. xxi. 6. Seven of Saul's <em>grandsons</em> were + delivered up. "<em>Laban rose up and kissed his SONS.</em>" Gen. xxi. 55. + These were his <em>grandsons</em>. "<em>The driving of Jehu the SON of + Nimshi.</em>" 2 Kings ix. 20. Jehu was the <em>grandson</em> of Nimshi. + Shall we forbid the inspired writer to + + use the <em>same</em> word when speaking of <em>Noah's</em> grandson? + Further; Ham was not the "<em>younger</em>" son. The order of enumeration + makes him the <em>second</em> son. If it be said that Bible usage varies, + the order of birth not always being observed in enumerations, the reply is, + that, enumeration in that order is the <em>rule</em>, in any other order + the <em>exception</em>. Besides, if a younger member of a family, takes + precedence of older ones in the family record, it is a mark of pre-eminence, + either in endowments, or providential instrumentality. Abraham, + though sixty years younger than his eldest brother, stands first in the + family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history shows him pre-eminent; + besides, the Hebrew word + <i>Hăkkātān</i> + rendered "the <em>younger</em>," means the <em>little, small</em>. + The same word is used in Isa. xl. 22. "<em>A LITTLE ONE shall become a + thousand</em>." Isa. xxii. 24. "<em>All vessels of SMALL + quantity</em>." Ps. cxv. 13. "<em>He will bless them that fear the + Lord both SMALL and great</em>." Ex. xviii. 22. "<em>But every SMALL + matter they shall judge</em>." It would be a literal rendering of + Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus. "When Noah knew what his little + son<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN21"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN21"></a>, or + grandson (<i>Bēno + Hăkkātān</i>) had done unto him, he said cursed be + Canaan," &c. Further, even if the Africans were the descendants of + Canaan, the assumption that their enslavement fulfils this prophecy, + lacks even plausibility, for, only a <em>fraction</em> of the Africans + have at any time been the slaves of other nations. If the objector say in + reply, that a large majority of the Africans have always been slaves + <em>at home</em>, we answer: <em>It is false in point of fact</em>, + though zealously bruited often to serve a turn; and <em>if it were + true</em>, how does it help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be + Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be <em>unto his</em> BRETHREN," + not unto <em>himself</em>! + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN21"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN21">A</a>: The French follows the same analogy; + <em>grandson</em> being + <i>petit fils</i> + (little son.) + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_money"></a></h3> + <p> + OBJECTION II.—"If a man smite his servant or his maid with a + rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, + if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, + for he is his money." Ex. xxi. 20, 21. What was the design of + this regulation? Was it to grant masters an indulgence to beat servants + with impunity, and an assurance, that if they beat them to + death, the offense shall not be <em>capital</em>? This is substantially + what commentators tell us. What Deity do such men worship? + Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human hecatombs, and + snuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered from Sinai's + + flames, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," offer a bounty on <em>murder</em>? Whoever + analyzes the Mosaic system, will find a moot court in session, + trying law points—settling definitions, or laying down rules of + evidence, in almost every chapter. Num. xxxv. 10-22; Deut. xi. 11, + and xix. 4-6; Lev. xxiv. 19-22; Ex. xxi. 18, 19, are a few, out of + many cases stated, with tests furnished the judges by which to detect + <em>the intent</em>, in actions brought before them. Their ignorance of + judicial proceedings, laws of evidence, &c., made such instructions + necessary. The detail gone into, in the verses quoted, is manifestly to + enable them to get at the <em>motive</em> and find out whether the master + <em>designed</em> to kill. (1.) "If a man smite his servant with a + <em>rod</em>."—The instrument used, gives a clue to the + <em>intent</em>. See Num. xxxv. 16, 18. A <em>rod</em>, not an axe, + nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other death-weapon—hence, from the + <em>kind</em> of instrument, no design to <em>kill</em> would be + inferred; for <em>intent</em> to kill would hardly have taken a + <em>rod</em> for its weapon. But if the servant die <em>under his + hand</em>, then the unfitness of the instrument, is point blank against him; + for, to strike him with a <em>rod</em> until he <em>dies</em>, argues + a great many blows and great violence, and this kept up to the death-gasp, + showed an <em>intent to kill</em>. Hence "He shall <em>surely</em> be + punished." But if he continued <em>a day or two</em>, the <em>length of + time that he lived</em>, together with the <em>kind</em> of instrument + used, and the master's pecuniary interest in his <em>life</em>, ("he is + his <em>money</em>,") all made a strong case of circumstantial evidence, + showing that the master did not design to kill. Further, the word + <i>nākăm</i>, + here rendered <em>punished</em>, is <em>not so rendered in another + instance</em>. Yet it occurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament, and in + almost every place is translated "<em>avenge</em>," in a few, "<em>to + take vengeance</em>," or "<em>to revenge</em>," + and in this instance ALONE, "<em>punish</em>." As it stands in our + translation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the <em>master</em>, + whereas it should refer to the <em>crime</em>, and the word rendered + <em>punished</em>, should have been rendered <em>avenged</em>. + The meaning is this: If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and + he die under his hand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, + <em>by avenging it shall be avenged</em>; that is, the <em>death</em> + of the servant shall be <em>avenged</em> by the <em>death</em> + of the master. So in the next verse, "If he continue a day or two," + his death is not to be avenged by the <em>death</em> of the + <em>master</em>, as in that case the crime was to be adjudged + <i>manslaughter</i>, and not + <i>murder</i>. In the following verse, another case of + personal injury is stated, for which the injurer is to pay a <em>sum of + money</em>; and yet our translators + + employ the same phraseology in both places. One, an instance of + deliberate, wanton, killing by piecemeal. The other, an accidental, + and comparatively slight injury—of the inflicter, in both cases, they + say the same thing! "He shall surely be punished." Now, just the + discrimination to be looked for where God legislates, is marked in + the original. In the case of the servant wilfully murdered, He says, + "It (the death) shall surely be <em>avenged</em>," that is, the life of + the wrong doer shall expiate the crime. The same word is used in the Old + Testament, when the greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the + perpetrators to <em>destruction</em>. In the case of the unintentional + injury, in the following verse, God says, "He shall surely be + <em>fined</em>," (<em>Aunash</em>.) "He shall <em>pay</em> as the + judges determine." The simple meaning of the word + <i>ānăsh</i>, is to lay a fine. + It is used in Deut. xxii. 19: "They shall amerce him in one hundred shekels," + and in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3: "He condemned (<i>mulcted</i>) + the land in a hundred talents of gold." That <em>avenging</em> the death + of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor a fine, but that it + was <em>taking the master's life</em> we infer, (1.) From the + <em>use</em> of the word + <i>nākăm</i>. See Gen. iv. 24; + Josh. x. 13; Judg. xiv. 7; xvi. 28; I Sam. xiv. 24; xviii. 25; xxv. 31; 2 Sam. + iv. 8; Judg. v. 2: I Sam. xxv. 26-33. (2.) From the express statute, + Lev. xxiv. 17; "He that killeth ANY man shall surely be put to death." + Also Num. xxxv. 30, 31: "Whoso killeth ANY person, the murderer shall be put + to death. Moreover, ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer + which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." (3.) The + Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, "Death by the sword shall surely be + adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem. "Vengeance shall be taken for him to the + <em>uttermost</em>." Jarchi, the same. The Samaritan version: "He shall + die the death," Again the clause "for he is his money," is quoted to prove + that the servant is his master's property, and therefore, if he died, the + master was not to be punished. The assumption is, that the phrase, "HE IS HIS + MONEY." proves not only that the servant is <em>worth money</em> to the + master, but that he is an <em>article of property</em>. If the advocates + of slavery insist upon taking the principle of interpretation into the Bible, + and turning it loose, let them stand and draw in self-defence. If they + endorse for it at one point, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. + It will be too late to cry for quarter when its stroke clears the table, and + tilts them among the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds with such + expressions as the following: "This (bread) is my + + body;" "this (wine) <em>is</em> my blood;" "all they (the Israelites) + <em>are</em> brass and tin;" "this (water) <em>is</em> the blood of + the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord God <em>is</em> + a sun and a shield;" "God <em>is</em> love;" "the seven good ears + <em>are</em> seven years, and the seven good kine <em>are</em> + seven years;" "the tree of the field <em>is</em> man's life;" "God + <em>is</em> a consuming fire;" "he <em>is</em> his money," &c. + A passion for the exact <em>literalities</em> of the Bible is so amiable, + it were hard not to gratify it in this case. The words in the original are + (<i>Kāspo-hu</i>,) "his + <em>silver</em> is he." The objector's principle of interpretation is a + philosopher's stone! Its miracle touch transmutes five feet eight inches + of flesh and bones into <em>solid silver!</em> Quite a + <em>permanent</em> servant, if not so nimble with all—reasoning + against "<em>forever</em>," is forestalled henceforth, and, + Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase, + "<em>He is his money</em>," is, he is <em>worth money</em> to his + master, and since, if the master had killed him, it would have taken money + out of his pocket, the <em>pecuniary loss</em>, the <em>kind of + instrument used</em>, and <em>the fact of his living some time after the + injury</em>, (if the master <em>meant</em> to kill, he would be likely + to <em>do</em> it while about it,) all together make a strong case of + presumptive evidence clearing the master of <em>intent to kill</em>. But + let us look at the objector's <em>inferences</em>. One is, that as the + master might dispose of his <em>property</em> as he pleased, he was not to + be punished, if he destroyed it. Whether the servant died under the master's + hand, or after a day or two, he was <em>equally</em> his property, and the + objector admits that in the <em>first</em> case the master is to be + "surely punished" for destroying <em>his own property!</em> The other + inference is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the master + of <em>intent to kill</em>, the loss of the slave would be a + sufficient punishment for inflicting the injury which caused his death. + This inference makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A + <em>pecuniary loss</em> was no part of the legal claim, where a person + took the <em>life</em> of another. In such case, the law spurned money, + whatever the sum. God would not cheapen human life, by balancing it with + such a weight. "Ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a + murderer, but he shall surely be put to death." Num. xxxv. 31. Even + in excusable homicide, where an axe slipped from the helve and killed + a man, no sum of money availed to release from confinement in + the city of refuge, until the death of the High Priest. Numb. xxxv. + 32. The doctrine that the loss of the servant would be a penalty + <em>adequate</em> to the desert of the master, admits his + <em>guilt</em> and his desert + + of <em>some</em> punishment, and it prescribes a kind of punishment, + rejected by the law in all cases where man took the life of man, whether + with or without the intent to kill. In short, the objector annuls an integral + part of the system—makes a <em>new</em> law, and coolly metes + out such penalty as he thinks fit. Divine legislation revised and improved! + The master who struck out his servant's tooth, whether intentionally + or not, was required to set him free. The <em>pecuniary loss</em> to the + master was the same as though he had killed him. Look at the two + cases. A master beats his servant so that he dies of his wounds; + another accidentally strikes out his servant's tooth,—<em>the + pecuniary loss of both cases is the same</em>. If the loss of the slave's + services is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing him, would + <em>God</em> command the <em>same</em> punishment for the + <em>accidental</em> knocking out of a <em>tooth?</em> Indeed, unless + the injury was done <em>inadvertantly</em>, the loss of the servant's + services was only a <em>part</em> of the punishment—mere reparation + to the <em>individual</em> for injury done; the <em>main</em> + punishment, that strictly <em>judicial</em>, was reparation to the + <em>community</em>. To set the servant free, and thus proclaim his injury, + his right to redress, and the measure of it—answered not the ends of + <em>public</em> justice. The law made an example of the offender. That + "those that remain might hear and fear." "If a man cause a blemish in his + neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for breach, + eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the + STRANGER as for one of your own country." Lev xxiv. 19, 20, 22. Finally, if a + master smote out his servant's tooth the law smote out <em>his</em> + tooth—thus redressing the <em>public</em> wrong; and it cancelled + the servant's obligation to the master, thus giving some compensation for the + injury done, and exempting him form perilous liabilities in future. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_Lev25_44"></a></h3> + <p> + OBJECTION III. "Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou + shalt have shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them + shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of + the stranger that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and + of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, + and they shall be your possessions. And ye shall take them as an + inheritance of your children from you, to inherit them for a possession; + they shall be your bondmen forever." Lev, xxv. 44-46. + + </p> + <p> + The <em>points</em> in these verses urged as proof, that the Mosaic system + sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." + 3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." and 4. "FOREVER." + + </p> + <p> + The <em>buying</em> of servants was discussed, pp. 17-22, and holding + them as a "possession." pp. 37-46. We will now ascertain what + sanction to slavery is derivable from the terms "bondmen," "inheritance," + and "forever." + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_Lev25_44_bond"></a> + 1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called + "<em>bondmen</em>," while others are called "<em>servants</em>," is + quoted as proof that the former were slaves. As the caprices of King James' + translators were not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. + The word here rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants + elsewhere. The Hebrew word + "<i>ĕbĕdh</i>," the plural of + which is here translated "bondmen," is in Isa. xlii. 1, applied to Christ. + "Behold my <em>servant</em> (bondman, slave?) whom I have chosen." So + Isa. lii. 13. "Behold my <em>servant</em> (Christ) shall deal prudently." + In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, to <em>King Rehoboam</em>. "And they spake unto + him, saying if thou wilt be a <em>servant</em> unto this people, then + they will be thy <em>servants</em> forever." In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, + to the king and all the nation. In fine, the word is applied to + <em>all</em> persons doing service for others—to magistrates, to all + governmental officers, to tributaries, to all the subjects of governments, to + younger sons—defining their relation to the first born, who is called + <em>Lord</em> and <i>ruler</i>—to prophets, to + kings, to the Messiah, and in respectful addresses not less than + <em>fifty</em> times in the Old Testament. + + </p> + <p> + If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, if + Abraham had thousands and if they <em>abounded</em> under the Mosaic + system, why had their language <em>no word</em> that + <em>meant slave</em>? That language must be wofully poverty-stricken, + which has no signs to represent the most common and familiar objects and + conditions. To represent by the same word, and without figure, property, and + the owner of that property, is a solecism. Ziba was an + "<i>ĕbĕdh</i>," yet he + "<em>owned</em>" (!) twenty + <i>ĕbĕdhs</i>! In our + language, we have both <em>servant</em> and <em>slave</em>. Why? + Because we have both the <em>things</em> and need <em>signs</em> + for them. If the tongue had a sheath, as swords have scabbards, we + should have some <em>name</em> for it: but our dictionaries give us none. + Why? Because there is no such <em>thing</em>. But the objector asks, + "Would not the Israelites use their word + <i>ĕbĕdh</i> if they spoke + of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. Their <i>national</i> + servants or tributaries, are spoken of frequently, but domestic servants so + rarely that no necessity existed, even if they were slaves, for coining a new + word. Besides, the fact of their being domestics, under + <i>heathen laws + + and usages</i> proclaimed their <em>liabilities</em>, their + <em>locality</em> made a <em>specific</em> term unnecessary. But if + the Israelites had not only <em>servants</em>, but a multitude of + <em>slaves</em>, a <em>word meaning slave</em>, would have been + indispensable for every day convenience. Further, the laws of the Mosaic + system were so many sentinels on the outposts to warn off foreign + practices. The border ground of Canaan, was quarantine ground, + enforcing the strictest non-intercourse in usages between the without + and the within. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_Lev25_44_forever"></a> + 2. "FOREVER." This is quoted to prove that servants were to + serve during their life time, and their posterity from generation to + generation. No such idea is contained in the passage. The word + "forever," instead of defining the length of + <i>individual</i> service, proclaims + the permanence of the regulation laid down in the two verses + preceding, namely, that their <i>permanent domestics</i> + should be of the Strangers, and not of the Israelites: it declares the + duration of that general provision. As if God had said, "You shall + <em>always</em> get your <em>permanent</em> laborers from the nations + round about you—your servants shall always be of that class of + persons." As it stands in the original it is plain—"Forever of them + shall ye serve yourselves." This is the literal rendering. + + </p> + <p> + That "<em>forever</em>" refers to the permanent relations of a + <i>community</i>, rather than to the services of + <i>individuals</i>, is a fair inference from the form of + the expression, "Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the + <i>heathen</i>. Of THEM shall ye buy," &c. "THEY + shall be your possession." To say nothing of the uncertainty of + <em>those individuals</em> surviving those <i>after</i> whom they are to live, the language used, applies more naturally + to a <em>body</em> of people, than to <em>individual</em> servants. + Besides <em>perpetual</em> service cannot be argued from the term + <em>forever</em>. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter, limit + it absolutely by the jubilee. "Then thou shalt cause the trumpet of the + jubilee to sound * * throughout ALL your land." "And ye shall proclaim liberty + throughout all the land unto ALL the inhabitants thereof." It may be + objected that "inhabitants" here means <i>Israelitish</i> + inhabitants alone. The command is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land + unto ALL <em>the inhabitants thereof</em>." Besides, in the sixth verse, + there is an enumeration of the different classes of the inhabitants, in which + servants and Strangers are included; and in all the regulations of the + jubilee, and the sabbatical year, the Strangers are included in the precepts, + prohibitions, and promises. Again: the year of jubilee was + + ushered in, by the day of atonement. What did these institutions + show forth? The day of atonement prefigured the atonement of + Christ, and the year of jubilee, the gospel jubilee. And did they + prefigure an atonement and a jubilee to Jews only? Were they types + of sins remitted, and of salvation proclaimed to the nation of Israel + alone? Is there no redemption for us Gentiles in these ends of the + earth, and is our hope presumption and impiety? Did that old partition + wall survive the shock, that made earth quake, and hid the sun, + burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple veil? and did the Gospel + only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition from its frowning battlements + on all without? No! The God of our salvation lives + "Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people." One shout shall + swell from all the ransomed, "Thou hast redeemed us unto God by + thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." + To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the servants + from the <em>Gentiles</em>, makes Christianity <em>Judaism</em>. It + not only eclipses the glory of the Gospel, but strikes out the sun. The + refusal to release servants at the jubilee falsified and disannulled a + grand leading type of the atonement, and was a libel on the doctrine of + Christ's redemption. Finally, even if <em>forever</em> did refer to + <i>individual</i> service, we have ample precedents for + limiting the term by the jubilee. The same word defines the length of time + which <em>Jewish</em> servants served who did not go out in the + <em>seventh</em> year. And all admit that they went out at the jubilee. + Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17. The 23d verse of the same chapter is quoted to + prove that "<em>forever</em>" in the 46th verse, extends beyond the + jubilee. "The land shall not be sold FOREVER, for the land is mine"—since it + would hardly be used in different senses in the same general connection. As + <em>forever</em>, in the 46th verse, respects the <em>general + arrangement</em>, and not <i>individual service</i> the + objection does not touch the argument. Besides in the 46th verse, + the word used, is <i>Olām</i>, + meaning <em>throughout the period</em>, whatever that may be. Whereas in + the 23d verse, it is <i>Tsĕmithuth</i>, meaning, a + <i>cutting off</i>. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_Lev25_44_inherit"></a> + 3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION," "Ye shall take them as an + INHERITANCE for your children after you to inherit them for a possession." + This refers to the <em>nations</em>, and not to the + <i>individual</i> servants, procured from these nations. + We have already shown, that servants could not be held as a + <i>property</i>-possession, and inheritance; that they + became servants of their <em>own accord</em>, and were paid wages; that + they + + were released by law from their regular labor nearly <em>half the days in + each year</em>, and thoroughly <em>instructed</em>; that the servants + were <em>protected</em> in all their personal, social and religious + rights, equally with their masters &c. All remaining, after these ample + reservations, would be small temptation, either to the lust of power or of + lucre; a profitable "possession" and "inheritance," truly! What if our + American slaves were all placed in <em>just such a condition</em> Alas, + for that soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!" + Verily, emphasis would be cadence, and euphony and irony + meet together! What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, + irrespective of connection, principles of construction, Bible + usages, or limitations of meaning by other passages—and all to eke + out such a sense as sanctifies existing usages, thus making God + pander for lust. The words <i>nahal</i> + and <i>nahala</i>, inherit and inheritance + by no means necessarily signify <em>articles of property</em>. "The + people answered the king and said, we have none + <i>inheritance</i> in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. + Did they moan gravely to disclaim the holding of their kin; as an article of + <em>property</em>? "Children are an <em>heritage</em> (inheritance) + of the Lord." Ps. cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine + <em>inheritance</em>." Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and + adopts them as children, does he make them <i>articles of + property</i>? Are forgiveness, and chattel-making, synonymes? "Thy + testimonies have I taken as a <i>heritage</i>" + (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. "<em>I</em> am their + <i>inheritance</i>." Ezek. xliv. 28. "I will give thee + the heathen for thine <i>inheritance</i>." Ps. ii. 8. + "For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his + <i>inheritance</i>." Ps. xciv 14. see also Deut. iv. 20; + Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov. xiv. 8. The question + whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"<i>possession</i>," + has been already discussed—pp. 37-46—we need add in this place but a + word, <i>āhuzzā</i> + rendered "<em>possession</em>." "And Joseph placed his father and his + brethren, and gave them a <i>possession</i> in the land of + Egypt." Gen. xlii. 11. In what sense was Goshen the + <i>possession</i> of the Israelites? Answer, in the sense + of <em>having it to live in</em>. In what sense were the Israelites to + <i>possess</i> these nations, and <em>take them</em> + as an <em>inheritance for their children</em>? Answer, they possessed + them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. + And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity + as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a descent + + by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be + given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall + be of the nations that are round about you, of <em>them</em> shall ye get + male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners + that do sojourn among you, of <em>them</em> shall ye get, and of their + families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and + <em>they</em> shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them + as a <em>perpetual</em> provision for your children after you, to hold as + a <em>constant source of supply</em>. Always <em>of them</em> shall ye + serve yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest from its structure. + It was to point out the <em>class</em> of persons from which they were to + get their supply of servants, and the <em>way</em> in which they were to + get them. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_Lev25_39"></a></h3> + <p> + OBJECTION IV. "If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen + poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a + BOND-SERVANT, but as an HIRED-SERVANT, and as a sojourner shall + he be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee." + Lev. xxv. 39, 40. + + </p> + <p> + As only <em>one</em> class is called "<i>hired</i>," + it is inferred that servants of the <em>other</em> class were + <em>not paid</em> for their labor. That God, with thundering + anathemas against those who "used their neighbor's service + without wages," granted a special indulgence to his chosen people + to force others to work, and rob them of earnings, provided always, + in selecting their victims, they spared "the gentlemen of property + and standing," and pounced only upon the strangers and the common + people. The inference that "<em>hired</em>" is synonymous with + <em>paid</em>, and that those servants not <em>called</em> "hired" + were not <em>paid</em> for their labor, is a mere assumption. The meaning + of the English verb <i>to hire</i>, is to procure for a + <i>temporary</i> use at a certain price—to engage + a person to temporary service for wages. That is also the meaning of the + Hebrew word "<i>saukar</i>." It is not + used when the procurement of <i>permanent</i> service is + spoken of. Now, we ask, would <i>permanent</i> servants, + those who constituted a stationary part of the family, have been designated + by the same term that marks <i>temporary</i> servants? + The every-day distinction on this subject, are familiar as table-talk. In + many families the domestics perform only the <em>regular</em> work. + Whatever is occasional merely, as the washing of a family, is done by persons + hired expressly for the purpose. The familiar distinction between the two + classes, is "servants," and "hired help," (not <i>paid</i> + help.) <em>Both classes are paid</em>. One is permanent, + + the other occasional and temporary, and therefore in this case + called "<i>hired</i><a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN22"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN22"></a>." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN22"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN22">A</a>: To suppose + a servant robbed of his earnings because he is not called a + <i>hired</i> servant is profound induction! If I employ + a man at twelve dollars a month to work my farm, he is my + "<i>hired</i>" man, but if <em>I give him such a portion + of the crop</em>, or in other words, if he works my farm + "<i>on shares</i>," every farmer knows that he is no + longer called my "<i>hired</i>" man. Yet he works the + same farm, in the same way, at the same time, and with the same teams and + tools; and does the same amount of work in the year, and perhaps earns twenty + dollars a month, instead of twelve. Now as he is no longer called + "<i>hired</i>," and as he still works my farm, suppose my + neighbours sagely infer, that since he is not my + "<i>hired</i>" laborer, I <em>rob</em> him of his + earnings and with all the gravity of owls, pronounce the oracular decision, + and hoot it abroad. My neighbors are deep divers!—like some theological + professors, they not only go to the bottom but come up covered with the + tokens. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_Lev25_39_diff"></a> + A variety of particulars are recorded distinguishing + <i>hired</i> from <i>bought</i> + servants. (1.) Hired servants were paid daily at + the close of their work. Lev. xix 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Job. vii. + 2; Matt. xx. 8. "<i>Bought</i>" servants were paid in + advance, (a reason for their being called <i>bought</i>,) + and those that went out at the seventh year received a + <i>gratuity</i>. Deut. xv. 12, 13. (2.) The "hired" + were paid <em>in money</em>, the "bought" received their + <i>gratuity</i>, at least, in grain, cattle, and the + product of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The "hired" + <em>lived</em> in their own families, the "bought" were part of their + masters' families. (4.) The "hired" supported their families out of their + wages: the "bought" and their families were supported by the master + <em>besides</em> their wages. The "bought" servants were, + <em>as a class, superior to the hired</em>—were more trust-worthy, + had greater privileges, and occupied a higher station in society. (1.) + They were intimately incorporated with the family of the masters, + were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which + hired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Ex. xii, 43, 45. (2.) + Their interests were far more identified with those of their masters' + family. They were often, actually or prospectively, heirs of their + masters' estates, as in the case of Eliezer, of Ziba, and the sons of + Bilhah and Zilpah. When there were no sons, or when they were + unworthy, bought servants were made heirs. Prov. xvii. 2. We + find traces of this usage in the New Testament. "But when the + husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, this + is the <i>heir</i>, come let us kill him, + <em>that the inheritance may be ours.</em>" Luke xx. 14. In + no instance does a <i>hired</i> servant inherit his + master's estate. (3.) Marriages took place between servants and their + master's daughters. Sheshan had a <em>servant</em>, an Egyptian, whose + + name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant + to wife. 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35. There is no instance of a + <i>hired</i> servant forming such an alliance. (4.) Bought + servants and their descendants were treated with the same affection and + respect as the other members of the family.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN23"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN23"></a>. The treatment of Abraham's servants, + Gen. xxv.—the intercourse between Gideon and his servant, Judg. + vii. 10, 11; Saul and his servant, 1 Sam. iv. 5, 22; Jonathan and + his servant, 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and his servant, are illustrations. + No such tie seems to have existed between <i>hired</i> + servants and their masters. Their untrustworthiness was proverbial. John + ix. 12, 13. None but the <em>lowest class</em> engaged as hired servants, + and the kinds of labor assigned to them required little knowledge and + skill. Various passages show the low repute and trifling character + of the class from which they were hired. Judg. ix. 4; 1 Sam. ii. 5. + The superior condition of bought servants is manifest in the high + trusts confided to them, and in their dignity and authority in the + household. In no instance is a <i>hired</i> servant thus + distinguished. The <i>bought</i> servant is manifestly the + master's representative in the family—with plenipotentiary powers over + adult children, even negotiating marriage for them. Abraham adjured his + servant not to take a wife for Isaac of the daughters of the Canaanites. The + servant himself selected the individual. Servants also exercised discretionary + power in the management of their masters' estates, "And the servant + took ten camels of the camels of his master, <em>for all the goods of his + master were under his hand</em>." Gen. xxiv. 10. The reason assigned for + taking them, is not that such was Abraham's direction, but that the servant + had discretionary control. Servants had also discretionary power in the + <em>disposal of property</em>. See Gen. xxiv. 22, 23, 53. The condition + of Ziba in the house of Mephibosheth, is a case in point. So + in Prov. xvii. 2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to be found in + the New Testament, Matt. xxiv. 45; Luke xii, 42, 44. So in the + parable of the talents; the master seems to have set up each of his + servants in trade with a large capital. The unjust steward had large + <em>discretionary</em> power, was "accused of wasting his master's goods," + and manifestly regulated with his debtors, the <em>terms</em> of + settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8. Such trusts were never reposed in + <i>hired</i> servants. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN23"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN23">A</a>: "For + the <i>purchased servant</i> who is an Israelite, or + proselyte, shall fare as his master. The master shall not eat fine bread, and + his servant bread of bran. Nor yet drink old wine, and give his servant new; + nor sleep on soft pillows, and bedding, and his servant on straw. I say unto + you, that he that gets a <i>purchased</i> servant does + well to make him as his friend, or he will prove to his employer as if he got + himself a master."—Maimonides, in Mishna Kiddushim. Chap. 1, + Sec. 2. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_Lev25_39_bgtfav"></a> + The inferior condition of <i>hired</i> servants, is + illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son. When the prodigal, perishing + with hunger among the swine and husks, came to himself, his proud heart + broke; "I will arise," he cried, "and go to my father." And then + to assure his father of the depth of his humility, resolved to add, + "Make me as one of thy <i>hired</i> servants." If + <i>hired</i> servants were the <em>superior</em> + class—to apply for the situation, savored little of that + sense of unworthiness that seeks the dust with hidden face, and + cries "unclean." Unhumbled nature <em>climbs</em>; or if it falls, clings + fast, where first it may. Humility sinks of its own weight, and in + the lowest deep, digs lower. The design of the parable was to illustrate + on the one hand, the joy of God, as he beholds afar off, the + returning sinner "seeking an injured father's face" who runs to clasp + and bless him with unchiding welcome; and on the other, the + contrition of the penitent, turning homeward with tears from his + wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with its ill-desert he sobs + aloud. "The lowest place, <em>the lowest place</em>, I can abide no + other." Or in those inimitable words, "Father I have sinned against Heaven, + and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son; make + me as one of thy HIRED servants." The supposition that + <i>hired</i> servants were the <em>highest</em> class, + takes from the parable an element of winning beauty and pathos. It is manifest + to every careful student of the Bible, that <em>one</em> class of + servants, was on terms of equality with the children and other members of the + family. (Hence the force of Paul's declaration, Gal. iv. 1, "Now I say unto + you, that the heir, so long as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A + SERVANT, though he be lord of all.") If this were the + <i>hired</i> class, the prodigal was a sorry specimen of + humility. Would our Lord have put such language upon the lips of one held up + by himself, as a model of gospel humility, to illustrate its deep sense of an + ill-desert? If this is <em>humility</em>, put it on stilts, and set it a + strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in apeing it. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_Lev25_39_both"></a> + Israelites and Strangers, belonged indiscriminately to <em>each</em> class + of the servants, the <i>bought</i> and the + <i>hired</i>. That those in the former + class, whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the + family circle, which were not conferred on <i>hired</i> + servants, has been + + shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges, + merely <i>political</i>, the hired servants from the + <em>Israelites</em>, were more favored than even the bought servants from + the <em>Strangers</em>. No one from the Strangers, however wealthy or + highly endowed, was eligible to the highest office, nor could he own the soil. + This last disability seems to have been one reason for the different periods + of service required of the two classes of bought servants—the Israelites + and the Strangers. The Israelite was to serve six years—the Stranger + until the jubilee. As the Strangers could not own the soil, nor even + houses, except within walled towns, most would attach themselves + to Israelitish families. <a name="E4r3_Lev25_39_Isrserv"></a>Those who were wealthy, or skilled in manufactures, + instead of becoming servants would need servants for their + own use, and as inducements for the Stranger's to become servants to + the Israelites, were greater than persons of their own nation could hold + out to them, these wealthy Strangers would naturally procure the poorer + Israelites for servants. Lev. xxv. 47. In a word, such was the + political condition of the Strangers, that the Jewish polity offered a + virtual bounty, to such as would become permanent servants, and thus + secure those privileges already enumerated, and for their children in + the second generation a permanent inheritance. Ezek. xlvii. 21-23. + None but the monied aristocracy would be likely to decline such offers. + On the other hand, the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance + of land being a sacred possession, to hold it free of incumbrance + was with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of family honor + and personal character. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the control + of one's inheritance, after the division of the paternal domain, or to + be kept out of it after having acceded to it, was a burden grievous to + be borne. <a name="E4r3_Lev25_39_reas7yr"></a>To mitigate as much as possible such a calamity, the law + released the Israelitish servant at the end of six + years<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN24"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN24"></a>; as, during + that time—if of the first class—the partition of the patrimonial + land might have taken place; or, if of the second, enough money might + have been earned to disencumber his estate, and thus he might assume + his station as a lord of the soil. If neither contingency had + + occurred, then after another six years the opportunity was again offered, + and so on, until the jubilee. <a name="E4r3_Lev25_39_lngreas"></a>So while + strong motives urged the Israelite to discontinue his service as soon as the + exigency had passed which made him a servant, every consideration impelled the + <i>Stranger</i> to <em>prolong</em> his term of + service; and the same kindness which + dictated the law of six years' service for the Israelite, assigned as + a general rule, a much longer period to the Gentile servant, who + had every inducement to protract the term. It should be borne in + mind, that adult Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporary + expedient to relieve themselves from embarrassment, and + ceased to be such when that object was effected. The poverty that + forced them to it was a calamity, and their service was either a means + of relief, or a measure of prevention; not pursued as a permanent + business, but resorted to on emergencies—a sort of episode in the + main scope of their lives. Whereas with the Strangers, it was a + <i>permanent employment</i>, pursued both as a + <em>means</em> of bettering their own condition, and that of their + posterity, and as an <em>end</em> for its own sake, conferring + on them privileges, and a social estimation not otherwise attainable. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN24"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN24">A</a>: Another reason for protracting the service + until the seventh year, seems to have been the coincidence of that period + with other arrangements, in the Jewish economy. Its pecuniary + responsibilities, social relations, and general internal structure, were + <em>graduated</em> upon a septennial scale. Besides as those Israelites + who became servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, till other + expedients to recruit their finances had + failed—(Lev. xxv. 35)—their <em>becoming servants</em> + proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the labor of a + <em>course of years</em> fully to reinstate them. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r3_Lev25_39_thereas"></a> + We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the + heathen, are called by way of distinction, <em>the</em> servants, (not + <i>bondmen</i>,) (1.) They followed it as a + <i>permanent business</i>. (2.) Their term of service was + <em>much longer</em> than that of the other class. (3.) As a class they + doubtless greatly outnumbered the Israelitish servants. (4.) All the + Strangers that dwelt in the land were <i>tributaries</i>, + required to pay an annual tax to the government, either in money, or in public + service, (called a "<i>tribute of land-service</i>;") in + other words, all the Strangers were <i>national + servants</i> to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word used to designate + <i>individual</i> servants, equally designates + <i>national</i> servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, + 6, 14. 2 Chron. viii. 7-9. Deut xx. 11. 2 Sam. x. 19. 1 Kings ix. 21, 22. + 1 Kings iv. 21. Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, + when they paid tribute to other nations. 2 Kings xvii. 3. + Judg. iii. 8, 14. Gen. xlix. 15. <a name="E4r3_Lev25_39_dsrv"></a>Another + distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought servants, was in their + <em>kinds</em> of service. The servants from the Strangers were properly + the <i>domestics</i>, or household servants, employed in + all family work, in offices of personal attendance, and in such mechanical + labor, as was required by increasing wants, and needed repairs. The Jewish + bought servants seem almost exclusively + <i>agricultural</i>. Besides being better fitted for + + it by previous habits—agriculture, and the tending of cattle, were + regarded by the Israelites as the most honorable of all occupations. + After Saul was elected king, and escorted to Gibeah, the next report + of him is, "<em>And behold Saul came after the herd out of the + field</em>." 1 Sam. xi. 7. Elisha "was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen." + 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah "loved husbandry." 2 Chron. xxvi. + 10. Gideon <em>was "threshing wheat</em>" when called to lead the host + against the Midianites. Judg. vi. 11. The superior honorableness of + agriculture, is shown, in that it was protected and supported by the + fundamental law of the theocracy—God indicating it as the chief prop + of the government. The Israelites were like permanent fixtures on + their soil, so did they cling to it. To be agriculturalists on their own + inheritances, was with them the grand claim to honorable estimation. + Agriculture being pre-eminently a <em>Jewish</em> employment, to assign a + native Israelite to other employments as a business, was to break up + his habits, do violence to cherished predilections, and put him to a + kind of labor in which he had no skill, and which he deemed + degrading. In short, it was in the earlier ages of the Mosaic system, + practically to <i>unjew</i> him, a hardship and rigor + grievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between the + descendants of Abraham and the Strangers.—<em>To guard this and + another fundamental distinction</em>, God instituted the regulation which + stands at the head of this branch of our inquiry, "If thy brother that + dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel + him to serve as a bond-servant." In other words, thou shalt not put him to + servant's work—to the business, and into the condition of domestics. + In the Persian version it is translated thus, "Thou shalt not assign + to him the work of <i>servitude</i>." In the Septuagint, + "He shall not serve thee with the service of a + <i>domestic</i>." In the Syriac, "Thou shalt not employ + him after the manner of servants." In the Samaritan, "Thou shalt not require + him to serve in the service of a servant." In the Targum of Onkelos, "He + shall not serve thee with the service of a household servant." In the Targum + of Jonathan, "Thou shalt not cause him to serve according to the usages of the + servitude of servants."<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN25"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN25"></a> The meaning of the passage + is, <em>thou shalt + + not assign him to the same grade, nor put him to the same service, + with permanent domestics.</em> The remainder of the regulation + is,—"<em>But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with + thee.</em>" Hired servants were not incorporated into the families of their + masters: they still retained their own family organization, without the + surrender of any domestic privilege, honor, or authority; and this + even though they resided under the same roof with their master. + While bought servants were associated with their master's families at + meals, at the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired servants + and sojourners were not. Ex. xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11. Hired + servants were not subject to the authority of their masters in any such + sense as the master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence + the only form of oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures + as practicable to masters, is that <em>of keeping back their wages</em>. + To have taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, + would have been pre-eminent "<em>rigor</em>," for it was not a servant + born in the house of a master, not a minor, whose minority had been sold by + the father, neither was it one who had not yet acceded to his inheritance: + nor finally, one who had received the <i>assignment</i> + of his inheritance, but was working off from it an incumbrance, before + entering upon its possession and control. But it was that of + <em>the head of a family</em>, who had known better days, now reduced to + poverty, forced to relinquish the loved inheritance of his fathers, with the + competence and respectful consideration its possession secured to him, and + to be indebted to a neighbor for shelter, sustenance, and employment. + So sad a reverse, might well claim sympathy; but one consolation + cheers him in the house of his pilgrimage; he is an + <i>Israelite—Abraham is his father</i>, and now in + his calamity he clings closer than ever, to the distinction conferred by his + birth-right. To rob him of this, were "the unkindest cut of all." To have + assigned him to a grade of service filled only by those whose permanent + business was serving, would have been to "rule over him with" peculiar + "rigor." "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," or literally, + <em>thou shalt not serve thyself with him, with the service of a + servant</em>, guaranties his political privileges, and a kind and grade of + service, comporting with his character and relations as an Israelite. And + "as a <i>hired</i> servant, and as a sojourner shall he + be with thee," secures to him his family organization, the respect and + authority due to its head, and the general consideration resulting from such + a station. Being already in possession of his inheritance, and the head of a + household, the law + + so arranged the conditions of his service as to <em>alleviate</em> as + much as possible the calamity, which had reduced him from independence and + authority, to penury and subjection. The import of the command + which concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, ("Thou shalt not + rule over him with rigor,") is manifestly this, you shall not disregard + those differences in previous associations, station, authority, and + political privileges, upon which this regulation is based; for to hold + this class of servants <em>irrespective</em> of these distinctions, and + annihilating them, is to "rule with rigor." The same command is repeated in + the forty-sixth verse, and applied to the distinction between servants of + Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction, and forbids the overlooking + of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, the disregard of which would be + <em>rigorous</em> in the extreme<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN26"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN26"></a>. The construction commonly put upon the + phrase "rule with rigor," and the inference drawn from it, have an air + vastly oracular. It is interpreted to mean, "you shall not make him + a chattel, and strip him of legal protection, nor force him to work + without pay." The inference is like unto it, viz., since the command + forbade such outrages upon the Israelites, it permitted and commissioned + their infliction upon the Strangers. Such impious and + shallow smattering captivates scoffers and libertines; its flippancy and + blasphemy, and the strong scent of its loose-reined license works + like a charm upon them. What boots it to reason against such rampant + affinities! In Ex. i. 13, it is said that the Egyptians "made the + children of Israel to <em>serve</em> with rigor." This rigor is affirmed + of the <em>amount of labor</em> extorted and the <em>mode</em> of the + exaction. The expression, "serve with rigor," is never applied to the service + of servants under the Mosaic system. The phrase, "thou shalt not RULE over + him with rigor," does not prohibit unreasonable exactions of labor, + nor inflictions of cruelty. Such were provided against otherwise. + But it forbids confounding the distinctions between a Jew and a + Stranger, by assigning the former to the same grade of service, for + the same term of time, and under the same political disabilities as + the latter. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN25"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN25">A</a>: Jarchi's comment on "Thou + shall not compel him to serve as a bond-servant" is, "The Hebrew servant is + not to be required to do any thing which is accounted degrading—such as + all offices of personal attendance, as loosing his master's shoe-latchet, + bringing him water to wash his feet and hands, waiting on him at table, + dressing him, carrying things to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to + work with his master as a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or + other labor, until his legal release." + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN26"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN26">B</a>: The + disabilities of the Strangers, which were distinctions, based on a different + national descent, and important to the preservation of national + characteristics, and a national worship, did not at all affect their + <i>social</i> estimation. They were regarded according to + their character, and worth as <i>persons</i>, + irrespective of their foreign origin, employments, and political + condition. + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_review"></a></h3> + <p> + We are now prepared to review at a glance, the condition of the + + different classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each + class. In the possession of all fundamental rights, all classes of + servants were on an absolute equality, all were equally protected by + law in their persons, character, property and social relations; all + were voluntary, all were compensated for their labor, and released + from it nearly half of the days in each year; all were furnished + with stated instruction: none in either class were in any sense articles + of property, all were regarded as <i>men</i>, with the + rights, interests, hopes and destinies of <i>men</i>. In + all these respects, <em>all</em> classes of servants among the Israelites, + formed but ONE CLASS. The <em>different</em> classes and the differences + in <em>each</em> class, were, (1.) <em>Hired Servants.</em> + This class consisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments + were different. The <i>Israelite</i> was an agricultural + servant. The Stranger was a <i>domestic</i> and + <i>personal</i> servant, and in some instances + <i>mechanical</i>; both were occasional and temporary. + Both lived in their own families, their wages were <em>money</em>, and + they were paid when their work was done. + (2.) <i>Bought Servants</i>, (including those "born in the + house.") This class also, consisted of Israelites and Strangers, the same + difference in their kinds of employments noticed before. Both were paid in + advance<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN27"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN27"></a>, and neither + was temporary. The Israelitish servant, with the exception of the + <i>freeholders</i> was released after six years. The + stranger was a permanent servant, continuing until the jubilee. A marked + distinction obtained also between different classes of <em>Jewish</em> + bought servants. Ordinarily, they were merged in their master's family, and, + like his wife and children, subject to his authority; (and, like them, + protected by law from its abuse.) But the + <i>freeholder</i> was a marked exception: his family + relations, and authority remained unaffected, nor was he subjected as an + inferior to the control of his master, though dependent upon him for + employment. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN27"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN27">A</a>: The payment <em>in advance</em>, + doubtless lessened the price of the purchase; the servant thus having the use + of the money, and the master assuming all the risks of life and health for + labor: at the expiration of the six year's contract, the master having + suffered no loss from the risk incurred at the making of it, was obliged by + law to release the servant with a liberal gratuity. The reason assigned for + this is, "he hath been worth a double hired servant unto thee in serving thee + six years," as if it had been said, as you have experienced no loss from the + risks of life, and ability to labor, incurred in the purchase, and which + lessened the price, and as, by being your servant for six years, he has saved + you the time and trouble of looking up and hiring laborers on emergencies, + therefore, "thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c. + </p> + <p> + It should be kept in mind, that <em>both</em> classes of servants, the + Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed <em>equal natural and religious + rights</em>, but <em>all the civil and political privileges</em> + enjoyed by those of their own people who were <em>not</em> servants. They + also shared in common with them the political disabilities which appertained + to all Strangers, whether the servants of Jewish masters, or the masters of + Jewish servants. Further, the disabilities of the servants from the Strangers + were exclusively <i>political</i> and + <i>national.</i> (1.) They, in common with all Strangers, + could not own the soil. (2.) They were ineligible to civil offices. (3.) They + were assigned to employments less honorable than those in which Israelitish + servants engaged; agriculture being regarded as fundamental to the existence + of the state, other employments were in less repute, and deemed + <i>unjewish.</i></p> + <p><a name="E4r3_review_pol"></a> + Finally, the Strangers, whether servants or masters, were all + protected equally with the descendants of Abraham. In respect to + political privileges, their condition was much like that of naturalized + foreigners in the United States; whatever their wealth or intelligence, + or moral principle, or love for our institutions, they can neither + go to the ballot-box, nor own the soil, nor be eligible to office. Let + a native American, be suddenly bereft of these privilege, and loaded + with the disabilities of an alien, and what to the foreigner would + be a light matter, to <em>him</em>, would be the severity of + <em>rigor</em>. The recent condition of the Jews and Catholics in England, + is another illustration. Rothschild, the late banker, though the richest + private citizen in the world, and perhaps master of scores of English + servants, who sued for the smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of + the government, inferior to the lowest among them. Suppose an + Englishman of the Established Church, were by law deprived of power to own + the soil, of eligibility to office and of the electoral franchise, + would Englishmen think it a misapplication of language, if it + were said, the government "rules over him with rigor?" And yet + his person, property, reputation, conscience, all his social relations, + the disposal of his time, the right of locomotion at pleasure, and of + natural liberty in all respects, are just as much protected by law as + the Lord Chancellor's. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_Ex21_2"></a></h3> + <p> + FINALLY,—As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, + rife with meaning in doctrine and duty; the practical power of the + whole, depended upon the exact observance of those distinctions and + relations which constituted its significancy. Hence, the care to preserve + + serve inviolate the distinction between a <em>descendant of Abraham</em> + and a <em>Stranger</em>, even when the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone + through the initiatory ordinances, entered the congregation, and become + incorporated with the Israelites by family alliance. The regulation + laid down in Ex. xxi. 2-6, is an illustration. In this case, the + Israelitish servant, whose term expired in six years, married one + of his master's <i>permanent female domestics</i>; but + her marriage, did not release her master from <em>his</em> part of the + contract for her whole term of service, nor from his legal obligation to + support and educate her children. Neither did it do away that distinction, + which marked her national descent by a specific + <em>grade</em> and <em>term</em> of service, nor impair + her obligation to fulfill <em>her</em> part of the contract. Her relations + as a permanent domestic grew out of a distinction guarded with great care + throughout the Mosaic system. To render it void, would have been + to divide the system against itself. This God would not tolerate. + Nor, on the other hand, would he permit the master, to throw off the + responsibility of instructing her children, nor the care and expense of + their helpless infancy and rearing. He was bound to support and + educate them, and all her children born afterwards during her term of + service. The whole arrangement beautifully illustrates that wise and + tender regard for the interests of all the parties concerned, which + arrays the Mosaic system in robes of glory, and causes it to shine as + the sun in the kingdom of our Father. By this law, the children had + secured to them a mother's tender care. If the husband loved his + wife and children, he could compel his master to keep him, whether + he had any occasion for his services or not. If he did not love them, + to be rid of him was a blessing; and in that case, the regulation + would prove an act for the relief of an afflicted family. It is not by + any means to be inferred, that the release of the servant in the + seventh year, either absolved him from the obligations of marriage, + or shut him out from the society of his family. He could + doubtless procure a service at no great distance from them, and might + often do it, to get higher wages, or a kind of employment better suited + to his taste and skill. The great number of days on which the + law released servants from regular labor, would enable him to spend + much more time with his family, than can be spent by most of the + agents of our benevolent societies with <em>their</em> families, or by + many merchants, editors, artists &c., whose daily business is in New York, + while their families reside from ten to one hundred miles in the country. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r3_uncext"></a></h3> + <p> + We conclude this Inquiry by touching briefly upon an objection, + which, though not formally stated, has been already set aside by the + whole tenor of the foregoing argument. It is this,—"The slavery + of the Canaanites by the Israelites, was appointed by God as a commutation + of the punishment of death denounced against them for their + sins." If the absurdity of a sentence consigning persons to + <em>death</em>, and at the same time to perpetual <em>slavery</em>, + did not sufficiently laugh at itself, it would be small self-denial, in a + case so tempting, to make up the deficiency by a general contribution. For, + <em>be it remembered</em>, only <em>one</em> statute was ever given + respecting the disposition to be made of the inhabitants of Canaan. If the + sentence of death was pronounced against them, and afterwards + <em>commuted</em>, when? where? by whom? and in what terms was the + commutation, and where is it recorded? Grant, for argument's sake, that all + the Canaanites were sentenced to unconditional extermination; as there was no + reversal of the sentence, how can a right to <em>enslave</em> them, be + drawn from such premises? The punishment of death is one of the highest + recognitions of man's moral nature possible. It proclaims him + <em>man</em>—rational, accountable, guilty, deserving + death for having done his utmost to cheapen + human life, when the proof of its priceless worth lived in his own + nature. But to make him a <i>slave</i>, cheapens to + nothing <i>universal human nature</i>, and instead of + healing a wound, gives a death-stab. What! repair an injury to rational being + in the robbery of <em>one</em> of its rights, by robbing it of + <em>all</em>, and annihilating their <em>foundation</em>—the + everlasting distinction between persons and things? To make a + man a chattel, is not the <em>punishment</em>, but the + <em>annihilation</em> of a <i>human</i> + being, and, so far as it goes, of <em>all</em> human beings. This + commutation of the punishment of death, into perpetual slavery, what a + fortunate discovery! Alas! for the honor of Deity, if commentators had + not manned the forlorn hope, and by a timely movement rescued the + Divine character, at the very crisis of its fate, from the perilous position + in which inspiration had carelessly left it! Here a question arises + of sufficient importance for a separate dissertation; but must for the + present be disposed of in a few paragraphs. WERE THE CANAANITES + SENTENCED BY GOD TO INDIVIDUAL AND UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION? + As the limits of this inquiry forbid our giving all the + grounds of dissent from commonly received opinions, the suggestions + made, will be thrown out merely as QUERIES, rather than laid down + as <i>doctrines</i>. The directions as to the disposal of + the Canaanites, + + are mainly in the following passages: Ex. xxiii. 23-33; xxxiv. 11; + Deut. vii. 16-25; ix. 3; xxxi. 3-5. In these verses, the Israelites + are commanded to "destroy the Canaanites," "drive out," "consume," + "utterly overthrow," "put out," "dispossess them," &c. Did + these commands enjoin the unconditional and universal destruction + of the <em>inhabitants</em> or merely of the <em>body politic?</em> + The word <i>hārăm</i>, + to destroy, signifies <i>national</i>, as well as + individual destruction, the destruction of + <i>political</i> existence, equally with + <i>personal</i>; of governmental + organization, equally with the lives of the subjects. Besides, + if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to mean + <i>personal</i> destruction, what meaning shall we give to + the expressions, "throw out before thee;" "cast out before thee;" "expel," + "put out," "dispossess," &c., which are used in the same passages? "I will + destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all + thine enemies <em>turn their backs unto thee</em>" Ex. xxiii. 27. Here + "<em>all thine enemies</em>" were to <em>turn their backs</em> and + "<em>all the people</em>" to be "<em>destroyed</em>." Does this mean + that God would let all their <em>enemies</em> escape, but kill all their + <em>friends</em>, or that he would <em>first</em> kill "all the + people" and THEN make them "turn their backs," an army of runaway + corpses? If these commands required the destruction of all + the inhabitants, the Mosaic law was at war with itself, for directions + as to the treatment of native residents form a large part of it. See + Lev. xix. 34; xxv. 35, 36; xx. 22. Ex. xxiii. 9; xxii. 21; Deut. + i. 16, 17; x. 17, 19, xxvii. 19. We find, also that provision was + made for them in the cities of refuge. Num. xxxv. 15;—the gleanings + of the harvest and vintage were theirs, Lev. xix. 9, 10; xxiii. + 22;—the blessings of the Sabbath, Ex. xx. 10;—the privilege of + offering sacrifices secured, Lev. xxii. 18; and stated religious instruction + provided for them, Deut. xxxi. 9, 12. Now does this same + law require the <em>individual extermination</em> of those whose lives + and interests it thus protects? These laws were given to the Israelites, + long <em>before</em> they entered Canaan; and they must have inferred from + them that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land were to + <em>continue</em> in it, under their government. Again Joshua was selected + as the leader of Israel to execute God's threatenings upon Canaan. He + had no <i>discretionary</i> power. God's commands were + his <em>official instructions</em>. Going beyond them would have been + usurpation; refusing to carry them out rebellion and treason. Saul was + rejected from being king for disobeying god's commands in a + <em>single</em> instance. Now, if + + God commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaanites. + Joshua <em>disobeyed him in every instance</em>. For at his death, the + Israelites still "<em>dwelt among them</em>," and each nation is mentioned + by name. Judg. i. 5, and yet we are told that Joshua "left nothing undone + of all that the Lord commanded Moses;" and that he "took all that land." + Josh. xi. 15-22. Also, that "there <em>stood not a man</em> of + <em>all</em> their enemies before them." How can this be, if the command + to <em>destroy</em> enjoined <i>individual</i> + extermination, and the command to <em>drive out</em>, unconditional + expulsion from the country, rather than their expulsion from the + <i>possession</i> or <i>ownership</i> + of it, as the lords of the soil? True, multitudes of the Canaanites were + slain, but not a case can be found in which one was either killed or expelled + who <em>acquiesced</em> in the transfer of the territory, and its + sovereignty, from the inhabitants of the land to the Israelites. Witness the + case of Rahab and her kindred, and the + Gibeonites<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN28"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN28"></a>. The Canaanites knew of the miracles wrought for the + Israelites; and that their land had been transferred to them as a judgment + for their sins. Josh. ii. 9-11; ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of them were awed by + these wonders, and made no resistance. Others defied God and came out to + battle. These occupied the fortified cities, were the most inveterate + heathen—the aristocracy of idolatry, the kings, the nobility and gentry, + the priests, with their crowds of satellite, and retainers that aided in + idolatrous rites, and the military forces, with the chief profligates of both + sexes. Many facts corroborate the general position. Such as the multitude + of <i>tributaries</i> in the midst of Israel, and that + too, after they had "waxed strong," and the uttermost nations quaked at the + terror of + + their name—the Canaanites, Philistines, and others, who became + proselytes—as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite—Rahab, who married + one of the princes of Judah—Ittai—the six hundred + Gitites—David's body guard. 2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the Gittite, + adopted into the tribe of Levi. Comp. 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1 + Chron. xv. 18, and 1 Chron. xxvi. 45—Jaziz, and Obil. 1 Chron. + xxvi. 30, 31, 33. Jephunneh the father of Caleb, the Kenite, registered + in the genealogies of the tribe of Judah, and the one hundred and + fifty thousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon in the building of the + Temple<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN29"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN29"></a>. Besides, the greatest miracle on record, + was wrought to save a portion of those very Canaanites, and for the + destruction of those who would exterminate them. Josh. x. 12-14. + Further—the terms employed in the directions regulating the disposal + of the Canaanites, such as "drive out," "put out," "cast out," "expel," + "dispossess," &c. seem used interchangeably with "consume," "destroy," + "overthrow," &c., and thus indicate the sense in which the latter words + are used. As an illustration of the meaning generally attached to these and + similar terms, we refer to the history of the Amelekites. "I will + utterly put out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven." Ex. + xxvii. 14. "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amelek from + under heaven; thou shalt not forget it." Deut. xxv. 19. "Smite Amelek and + <em>utterly destroy</em> all that they have, and spare them not, + but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep." + 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. "Saul smote the Amelekites, and took Agag the + king of the Amelekites, alive and UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THE + PEOPLE with the edge of the sword." Verses 7, 8. In verse 20, + Saul says, "I have brought Agag, the king of Amelek, and have + <em>utterly destroyed</em> the Amelekites." In 1 Sam. xxx. we find the + Amelekites marching an army into Israel, and sweeping everything before + them—and this in about eighteen years after they had + <em>all been</em> "UTTERLY DESTROYED!" Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be + quoted against the preceding view. We argue that the command in these + verses, did not include all the individuals of the Canaanitish nations, + but only the inhabitants of the <em>cities</em>, (and even those + conditionally,) because, only the inhabitants of the <em>cities</em> are + specified,—"of the <em>cities</em> of these people thou shalt save + alive nothing that breatheth." Cities + + then, as now, were pest-houses of vice—they reeked with abominations + little practiced in the country. On this account their influence + would be far more perilous to the Israelites than that of the country. + Besides, they were the centres of idolatry—there were the temples + and altars, and idols, and priests, without number. Even their buildings, + streets, and public walks were so many visibilities of idolatry. + The reason assigned in the 18th verse for exterminating them, + strengthens the idea,—"that they teach you not to do after all the + abominations which they have done unto their gods." This would + be a reason for exterminating <em>all</em> the nations and individuals + <em>around</em> them, as all were idolaters; but God commanded them, in + certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with <em>any</em> of + them would be perilous—with the inhabitants of the <em>cities</em> + peculiarly, and of the <i>Canaanitish</i> cities + pre-eminently so. The 10th and 11th verses contain the general rule + prescribing the method in which cities were to be summoned to surrender. + They were first to receive the offer of peace—if it was accepted, the + inhabitants became <i>tributaries</i>—but if + they came out against Israel in battle, the <em>men</em> were to be + killed, and the women and little ones saved alive. The 15th verse restricts + this lenient treatment to the inhabitants of the cities <em>afar off</em>. + The 16th directs as to the disposal of the inhabitants of Canaanitish cities. + They were to save alive "nothing that breathed." The common + mistake has been, in supposing that the command in the 15th verse + refers to the <em>whole system of directions preceding</em>, commencing + with the 10th, whereas it manifestly refers only to the + <em>inflictions</em> specified in the 12th, 13th, and 14th, making a + distinction between those <i>Canaanitish</i> cities that + <em>fought</em>, and the cities <em>afar off</em> that fought—in + one case destroying the males and females, and in the other, the + <em>males</em> only. The offer of peace, and the <em>conditional + preservation</em>, were as really guarantied to + <i>Canaanitish</i> cities as to others. Their inhabitants + were not to be exterminated unless they came out against Israel in battle. + But let us settle this question by the "law and the testimony." + "There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel + save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all others they took in + battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they + should COME OUT AGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, that he might destroy + them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that he might + destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses." Josh. xix. 19, 20. + That is, if they had <em>not</em> come out against Israel in battle, they + would + + have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been "<em>destroyed + utterly.</em>" The great design was to <em>transfer the territory</em> + of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, + <em>absolute sovereignty in every respect</em>; to annihilate + their political organizations, civil polity, + and jurisprudence and their system of religion, with all its rights + and appendages; and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy, administered + by Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and agents. + In a word the people were to be <i>denationalized</i>, + their political existence annihilated, their idol temples, altars, images + groves and heathen rites destroyed, and themselves put under tribute. Those + who resisted the execution of Jehovah's purpose were to be killed, while + those who quietly submitted to it were to be spared. All had the + choice of these alternatives, either free egress out of the + land<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r3_FN30"><sup>C</sup></a><a name="FootE4r3_FN30"></a>; or + acquiescence in the decree, with life and residence as tributaries, + under the protection of the government; or resistance to the execution + of the decree, with death. "<em>And it shall come to pass, if they + will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, the + Lord liveth as they taught my people to swear by Baal</em>; THEN SHALL + THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN28"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN28">A</a>: Perhaps it will be objected, that the + preservation of the Gibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation + of the command of God. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such + intimation. If God had strictly commanded them to <em>exterminate all the + Canaanites</em>, their pledge to save themselves was neither a repeal of the + statute, nor absolution for the breach of it. If + <i>unconditional destruction</i> was the import of the + command, would God have permitted such an act to pass without rebuke? Would + he have established such a precedent when Israel had hardly passed the + threshold of Canaan, and was then striking the first blow of a half century + war? What if they <em>had</em> passed their word to Rahab and + the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than God's command? So Saul seems to + have passed <em>his</em> word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in + pieces, because in saving his life, Saul had violated God's command. When + Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in "his zeal for the children of Israel + and Judah," God sent upon Israel three years famine for it. When David + inquired of them what atonement he should make, they say, "The man that + devised against us, that we should be destroyed from <em>remaining in any + of the coasts of Israel</em>, let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. + 2 Sam. xxii. 1-6. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN29"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN29">B</a>: If the Canaanites were devoted by God to + unconditional extermination, to have employed them in the erection of the + temple,—what was it but the climax of impiety? As well might they + pollute its altars with swine's flesh, or make their sons pass + through the fire to Moloch. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r3_FN30"></a><a href="#FootE4r3_FN30">C</a>: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had + abandoned their territory at the tidings of Israel's approach, did God's + command require the Israelites to chase them to the ends of the earth and hunt + them out, until every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for + belief and yet it follows legitimately from that construction, + which interprets the terms "consume," "destroy," "destroy utterly," &c. to + mean unconditional, individual extermination. + </p> + <p> + [The original design of the preceding Inquiry embraced a much + wider range of topics. It was soon found, however, that to fill up the + outline would be to make a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore + been thrown into a mere series of <i>indices</i>, to + trains of thought and classes of proof which, however limited or imperfect, + may perhaps, afford some facilities to those who have little leisure for + protracted investigation.] + + </p> + </div> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h2><a name="E4r4"></a> + THE + <br><br> + ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER NO 4. + <br><br> + THE + <br><br> + BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY. + <br><br> + AN INQUIRY INTO THE + <br><br> + PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS + <br><br> + ON THE SUBJECT OF + <br><br> + HUMAN RIGHTS. + <br><br> + Fourth Edition—Enlarged. + <br></h2> + NEW YORK: + + <p> + PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, + + </p> + <p> + NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. + + </p> + <p> + 1838. + + </p> + <p> + This No. contains 7 sheets:—Postage, under 100 miles, 10 1/2 cents; + over 100 miles, 14 cents. + + </p> + <p> + Please read and Circulate. + + </p> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="projectID3ec2855c3002e-div-d0e14934"></a> + CONTENTS. + + </h3> + <ul> + <li><a name="d0e14938"></a><a href="#E4r4_def" class="ref">DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e14941"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e14943"></a><a href="#E4r4_def_neg" class="ref">NEGATIVE,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e14946"></a><a href="#E4r4_def_aff" class="ref">AFFIRMATIVE,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e14949"></a><a href="#E4r4_def_leg" class="ref">LEGAL,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e14952"></a><a href="#E4r4_mor" class="ref">THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e14955"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e14957"></a><a href="#E4r4_mor_steal" class="ref">"THOU SHALT NOT STEAL,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e14960"></a><a href="#E4r4_mor_covet" class="ref">"THOU SHALT NOT COVET,"</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e14963"></a><a href="#E4r4_Ex21_16" class="ref">MAN-STEALING—EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e14966"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e14968"></a><a href="#E4r4_Ex21_16_mnbst" class="ref">SEPARATION OF MAN FROM BRUTES AND THINGS,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e14971"></a><a href="#E4r4_buy" class="ref">IMPORT OF "BUY" AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e14974"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e14976"></a><a href="#E4r4_buy_selves" class="ref">SERVANTS SOLD THEMSELVES,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e14979"></a><a href="#E4r4_rights" class="ref">RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SERVANTS,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e14982"></a><a href="#E4r4_vol" class="ref">SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e14985"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e14987"></a><a href="#E4r4_vol_run" class="ref">RUNAWAY SERVANTS NOT TO BE DELIVERED TO THEIR MASTERS,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e14990"></a><a href="#E4r4_wages" class="ref">SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e14993"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown" class="ref">MASTERS NOT "OWNERS,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e14996"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e14998"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_useprop" class="ref">SERVANTS NOT SUBJECTED TO THE USES OF PROPERTY,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15001"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_distprop" class="ref">SERVANTS EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED FROM PROPERTY,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15004"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_gen_12_5" class="ref">EXAMINATION OF GEN. xii. 5.—"THE SOULS THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN," &c.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15007"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_socequ" class="ref">SOCIAL EQUALITY OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15010"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_gib" class="ref">CONDITION OF THE GIBEONITES AS SUBJECTS OF THE HEBREW COMMONWEALTH,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15013"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_Egy" class="ref">EGYPTIAN BONDAGE CONTRASTED WITH AMERICAN SLAVERY,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15016"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_Amer" class="ref">CONDITION OF AMERICAN SLAVES,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15019"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_illfed" class="ref">ILL FED,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15022"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_illclo" class="ref">ILL CLOTHED,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15025"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_ovwked" class="ref">OVER-WORKED,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15028"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_unfdwe" class="ref">THEIR DWELLING UNFIT FOR HUMAN BEINGS,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15031"></a><a href="#E4r4_noown_heathen" class="ref">MORAL CONDITION—"HEATHENS,"</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e15035"></a><a href="#E4r4_OBJ" class="ref">OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15038"></a><a href="#E4r4_Canaan" class="ref">"CURSED BE CANAAN," &c.—EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15041"></a><a href="#E4r4_money" class="ref">"FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &c.—EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 20, 21,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15044"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_44" class="ref">EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44-46,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15047"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e15049"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_44_bond" class="ref">"BOTH THY <b>BONDMEN</b>, &c., SHALL BE OF THE HEATHEN,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15055"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_44_buy" class="ref">"OF THEM SHALL YE <b>BUY</b>,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15061"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_44_forever" class="ref">"THEY SHALL BE YOUR BONDMEN <b>FOREVER</b>,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15067"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_44_inherit" class="ref">"YE SHALL TAKE THEM AS AN <b>INHERITANCE</b>," &c.</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e15073"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_39" class="ref">EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 39, 40.—THE FREEHOLDER NOT TO "SERVE AS A BOND SERVANT,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15076"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e15078"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_39_diff" class="ref">DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIRED AND BOUGHT SERVANTS,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15081"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_39_bgtfav" class="ref">BOUGHT SERVANTS THE MOST FAVORED AND HONORED CLASS,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15084"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_39_both" class="ref">ISRAELITES AND STRANGERS BELONGED TO BOTH CLASSES,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15087"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_39_Isrserv" class="ref">ISRAELITES SERVANTS TO THE STRANGERS,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15090"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_39_reas7yr" class="ref">REASONS FOR THE RELEASE OF THE ISRAELITISH SERVANTS IN THE SEVENTH YEAR,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15093"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_39_lngreas" class="ref">REASONS FOR ASSIGNING THE STRANGERS TO A LONGER SERVICE,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15096"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_39_thereas" class="ref">REASONS FOR CALLING THEM THE SERVANTS,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15099"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_39_dsrv" class="ref">DIFFERENT KINDS OF SERVICE ASSIGNED TO THE ISRAELITES AND STRANGERS,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e15102"></a><a href="#E4r4_review" class="ref">REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF EACH,</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15105"></a><ul> + <li><a name="d0e15107"></a><a href="#E4r4_review_pol" class="ref">POLITICAL DISABILITIES OF THE STRANGERS,</a></li> + </ul> + </li> + <li><a name="d0e15110"></a><a href="#E4r4_Ex21_2" class="ref">EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2-6.—"IF THOU BUY AN HEBREW SERVANT,"</a></li> + <li><a name="d0e15113"></a><a href="#E4r4_uncext" class="ref">THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION,</a></li> + </ul> + </div> + <p><br><br> + THE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY. + <br><br></p> + <p> + The spirit of slavery never seeks refuge in the Bible of its own accord. + The horns of the altar are its last resort—seized only in desperation, + as it rushes from the terror of the avenger's arm. Like other + unclean spirits, it "hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, + lest its deeds should be reproved." Goaded to phrenzy in its conflicts + with conscience and common sense, denied all quarter, and hunted from + every covert, it vaults over the sacred inclosure and courses up and + down the Bible, "seeking rest, and finding none." THE LAW OF LOVE, + glowing on every page, flashes around it an omnipresent anguish and + despair. It shrinks from the hated light, and howls under the consuming + touch, as demons quailed before the Son of God, and shrieked, + "Torment us not." At last, it slinks away under the types of the + Mosaic system, and seeks to burrow out of sight among their shadows. + Vain hope! Its asylum is its sepulchre; its city of refuge, the city of + destruction. It flies from light into the sun; from heat, into devouring + fire; and from the voice of God into the thickest of His + thunders. + + </p> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_def"></a> + DEFINITION OF SLAVERY. + + </h3> + <p><a name="E4r4_def_neg"></a> + If we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must determine + <em>what slavery is</em>. An element, is one thing; a relation, another; + an appendage, another. Relations and appendages presuppose other + things to which they belong. To regard them as the things themselves, + or as constituent parts of them, leads to endless fallacies. + + Mere political disabilities are often confounded with slavery; so are + many relations, and tenures, indispensible to the social state. We will + specify some of these. + + </p> + <p> + 1. PRIVATION OF SUFFRAGE. Then minors are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 2. INELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE. Then females are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 3. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Then slaveholders in the District of + Columbia are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 4. PRIVATION OF ONE'S OATH IN LAW. Then atheists are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 5. PRIVATION OF TRIAL BY JURY. Then all in France are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 6. BEING REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A PARTICULAR RELIGION. Then + the people of England are slaves. + + </p> + <p> + 7. APPRENTICESHIP. The rights and duties of master and apprentice are + correlative. The <em>claim</em> of each upon the other results from + his <em>obligation</em> to the other. Apprenticeship is based on the + principle of equivalent for value received. The rights of the apprentice + are secured, equally with those of the master. Indeed while the law is + <em>just</em> to the former it is <em>benevolent</em> to the latter; + its main design being rather to benefit the apprentice than the master. + To the master it secures a mere compensation—to the apprentice, both a + compensation and a virtual gratuity in addition, he being of the two + the greatest gainer. The law not only recognizes the <em>right</em> of + the apprentice to a reward for his labor, but appoints the wages, and + enforces the payment. The master's claim covers only the <em>services</em> + of the apprentice. The apprentice's claim covers <em>equally</em> the + services of the master. Neither can hold the other as property; but each + holds property in the services of the other, and BOTH EQUALLY. Is this + slavery? + + </p> + <p> + 8. FILIAL SUBORDINATION AND PARENTAL CLAIMS. Both are nature's + dictates, and intrinsic elements of the social state; the natural affections + which blend parent and child in one, excite each to discharge those offices + incidental to the relation, and are a shield for mutual protection. The + parent's legal claim to the child's services, is a slight return for the care + and toil of his rearing, exclusively of outlays for support and education. + This provision is, with the mass of mankind, indispensable to the + preservation of the family state. The child, in helping his parents, helps + himself—increases a common stock, in which he has a share; while his + most faithful services do but acknowledge a debt that money cannot cancel. + + </p> + <p> + 9. CLAIMS OF GOVERNMENT ON SUBJECTS. Governments owe their + subjects protection; subjects owe just governments allegiance and + support. The obligations of both are reciprocal, and the benefits + received by both are mutual, equal, and voluntarily rendered. + + </p> + <p> + 10. BONDAGE FOR CRIME. Must innocence be punished because + guilt suffers penalties? True, the criminal works for the government + without pay; and well he may. He owes the government. A century's + work would not pay its drafts on him. He will die a public + defaulter. Because laws make men pay their debts, shall those be + forced to pay who owe nothing? The law makes no criminal, PROPERTY. + It restrains his liberty, and makes him pay something, a + mere penny in the pound, of his debt to the government; but it does + not make him a chattel. Test it. To own property, is to own its + product. Are children born of convicts, government property? + Besides, can <i>property</i> be guilty? Can + <i>chattels</i> deserve punishment? + + </p> + <p> + 11. RESTRAINTS UPON FREEDOM. Children are restrained by parents, + pupils, by teachers, patients, by physicians, corporations, by charters, + and legislatures, by constitutions. Embargoes, tariffs, quarantine, and + all other laws, keep men from doing as they please. Restraints are the + web of civilized society, warp and woof. Are they slavery? then a + government of LAW, is the climax of slavery! + + </p> + <p> + 12. INVOLUNTARY OR COMPULSORY SERVICE. A juryman is empannelled + against his will, and sit he <em>must</em>. A sheriff orders his posse; + bystanders <em>must</em> turn in. Men are <em>compelled</em> to remove + nuisances, pay fines and taxes, support their families, and "turn to the right + as the law directs," however much against their wills. Are they + therefore slaves? To confound slavery with involuntary service is absurd. + Slavery is a <i>condition</i>. The slave's + <em>feelings</em> toward it cannot alter its nature. Whether he desires or + detests it, the condition remains the same. The slave's willingness to be a + slave is no palliation of the slaveholder's guilt. Suppose he should really + believe himself a chattel, and consent to be so regarded by others, would + that <em>make</em> him a chattel, or make those guiltless who + <em>hold</em> him as such? I may be sick of life, and I tell the assassin + so that stabs me; is he any the less a murderer? Does my <em>consent</em> + to his crime, atone for it? my partnership in his guilt, blot out his part of + it? The slave's willingness to be a slave, so far from lessening the guilt of + his "owner," aggravates it. If slavery has so palsied his mind that he looks + upon himself as a chattel, and consents to be one, actually to hold him as + such, falls in with his delusion, and confirms the impious falsehood. These + very feelings and convictions of the slave, (if such were possible) increase + a hundred fold the guilt of the master, and call upon him in thunder, + immediately to recognize him as a MAN, and thus break the sorcery + + that cheats him out of his birthright—the consciousness of his worth + and destiny. + + </p> + <p> + Many of the foregoing conditions are <em>appendages</em> of slavery, but + no one, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging + element. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_def_aff"></a> + ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY—making + free agents, chattels—converting <i>persons</i> + into <i>things</i>—sinking immortality into + <i>merchandize</i>. A <i>slave</i> + is one held in this condition. In law, "he owns nothing, and can acquire + nothing." His right to himself is abrogated. If he say <em>my</em> hands, + <em>my</em> body, <em>my</em> mind, MY<em>self</em>, they are + figures of speech. To <em>use himself</em> for his own good, is a + <em>crime</em>. To keep what he earns, is <em>stealing</em>. To take + his body into his own keeping, is <i>insurrection</i>. + In a word, the profit of his master is made the END of his being, and he, a + <em>mere means</em> to that end—a mere means to an end into which + his interests do not enter, of which they constitute no + portion<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN1"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN1"></a>. MAN, sunk to a + <em>thing!</em> the intrinsic element, the <em>principle</em> of + slavery; MEN, bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, invoiced, shipped in + cargoes, stored as goods, taken on executions, and knocked off at a public + outcry! Their <em>rights</em>, another's conveniences; their interests, + wares on sale; their happiness, a household utensil; their personal + inalienable ownership, a serviceable article or a plaything, as best suits the + humour of the hour; their deathless nature, conscience, social affections, + sympathies, hopes—marketable commodities! We repeat it, THE REDUCTION + OF PERSONS TO THINGS! Not robbing a man of privileges, but of + <em>himself</em>; not loading him with burdens, but making him a + <em>beast of burden</em>; not restraining liberty, but + + subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them; not inflicting + personal cruelty, but annihilating <em>personality</em>; not exacting + involuntary labor, but sinking man into an <em>implement</em> of labor; + not abridging human comforts, but abrogating human <em>nature</em>; not + depriving an animal of immunities, but despoiling a rational being of + attributes—uncreating a MAN, to make room for a <em>thing</em>! + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN1"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN1">A</a>: To deprive human nature of <em>any</em> + of its rights is <em>oppression</em>; to take away + the <em>foundation</em> of its rights is slavery. In other words, whatever + sinks man from an END to a mere <em>means</em>, just so far makes him a + slave. Hence West-India apprenticeship retained the cardinal principle of + slavery. The apprentice, during three-fourths of his time, was forced to + labor, and robbed of his earnings; just so far forth he was a <em>mere + means</em>, a slave. True in other respects slavery was abolished in the + British West Indies August, 1834. Its bloodiest features were blotted + <em>out</em>—but the meanest and most despicable of + all—forcing the poor to work for the rich without pay three fourths of + their time, with a legal officer to flog them if they demurred at the outrage, + was one of the provisions of the "Emancipation Act!" For the glories of that + luminary, abolitionists thanked God, while they mourned that it rose behind + clouds and shone through an eclipse. + + </p> + <p> + [West India apprenticeship is now (August 1838) abolished. On the first of + the present month, every slave in every British island and colony stood up a + freeman!—Note to fourth edition.] + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_def_leg"></a> + That this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave states. + Judge Stroud, in his "Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery," says, + "The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked + among sentient beings, but among <em>things</em>—obtains as + undoubted law in all of these [the slave] states." The law of South Carolina + says, "Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to + be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and + their executors, administrators, and assigns, to ALL INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS, + AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER." <em>Brev. Dig.</em>, 229. In Louisiana, + "A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs; + the master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his + labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing, but + what must belong to his master."—<em>Civ. Code</em>, Art. 35. + + </p> + <p> + This is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a person + and a thing, trampled under foot—the crowning distinction of all + others—alike the source, the test, and the measure of their + value—the rational, immortal principle, consecrated by God to universal + homage in a baptism of glory and honor, by the gift of his Son, his Spirit, + his word, his presence, providence, and power; his shield, and staff, and + sheltering wing; his opening heavens, and angels ministering, and + chariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, and a great voice in heaven + proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirming the word with signs + following. + + </p> + <p> + Having stated the <em>principle</em> of American slavery, we ask, DOES + THE BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN2"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN2"></a> "To the + <em>law</em> and the testimony?" + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN2"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN2">A</a>: The Bible + record of actions is no comment on their moral character. It vouches for them + as <em>facts</em>, not as <em>virtues</em>. It records without + rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob and his + mother—not only single acts, but <i>usages</i>, + such as polygamy and concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. + Is that <em>silent entry</em> God's <em>endorsement?</em> Because the + Bible in its catalogue of human actions, does not stamp on every crime its + name and number, and write against it, <em>this is a crime</em>—does + that wash out its guilt, and bleach it into a virtue? + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_mor"></a> + THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY. + + </h3> + <p> + Just after the Israelites were emancipated from their bondage in + Egypt, while they stood before Sinai to receive the law, as the trumpet + waxed louder, and the mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten + commandments from the midst of clouds and thunderings. Two of + those commandments deal death to slavery. "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL," + or, "thou shalt not take from another what <em>belongs</em> to him." All + man's powers are God's gift to HIM. Each of them is a part of himself, + and all of them together constitute himself. All else that belongs + to man, is acquired by the <em>use</em> of these powers. The interest + belongs to him, because the principal does; the product is his, because he is + the producer. Ownership of any thing, is ownership of its <em>use</em>. + The right to use according to will, is <em>itself</em> ownership. The + eighth commandment presupposes and assumes the right of every man to his + powers, and their product. Slavery robs of both. A man's right to + himself, is the only right absolutely original and intrinsic—his right + to anything else is merely <i>relative</i> to this, is + derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the + <i>foundation right</i>—the <em>post in + the middle</em>, to which all other rights are fastened. Slaveholders, when + talking about their RIGHT to their slaves, always assume their own right + to themselves. What slave-holder ever undertook to prove his right + to himself? He knows it to be a self-evident proposition, that <em>a man + belongs to himself</em>—that the right is intrinsic and absolute. In + making out his own title, he makes out the title of every human being. As the + fact of being <em>a man</em> is itself the title, the whole human family + have one common title deed. If one man's title is valid, all are valid. If + one is worthless, all are. To deny the validity of the <em>slave's</em> + title is to deny the validity of <em>his own</em>; and yet in the act of + making a man a slave, the slaveholder <em>asserts</em> the validity of + his own title, while he seizes him as his property who has the + <em>same</em> title. Further, in making him a slave, he does not merely + disfranchise of humanity <em>one</em> individual, but UNIVERSAL MAN. He + destroys the foundations. He annihilates <em>all rights</em>. He attacks + not only the human race, but <i>universal being</i>, and + rushes upon JEHOVAH. For rights are <em>rights</em>; God's are no + more—man's are no less. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_mor_steal"></a> + The eighth commandment forbids the taking of <em>any part</em> of that + which belongs to another. Slavery takes the <em>whole</em>. Does the same + Bible which prohibits the taking of <em>any</em> thing from him, sanction + the taking of <em>every</em> thing! Does it thunder wrath against the man + who robs + + his neighbor of a <em>cent</em>, yet commission him to rob his neighbour + of <em>himself?</em> Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the + eight commandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to take the + <em>earner</em>, is a compound, life-long theft—supreme robbery that + vaults up the climax at a leap—the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that + towers among other robberies a solitary horror. The eight commandment + forbids the taking away, and the <a name="E4r4_mor_covet"></a> tenth adds, + "Thou shalt not <em>covet</em> any thing that is thy neighbor's;" thus + guarding every man's right to himself and property, by making not only the + actual taking away a sin, but even that state of mind which would + <em>tempt</em> to it. Who ever made human beings slaves, + without <em>coveting</em> them? Why take from them their time, labor, + liberty, right of self-preservation and improvement, their right to acquire + property, to worship according to conscience, to search the Scriptures, to + live with their families, and their right to their own bodies, if they do not + <em>desire</em> them? They COVET them for purposes of gain, convenience, + lust of dominion, of sensual gratification, of pride and ostentation. THEY + BREAK THE TENTH COMMANDMENT, and pluck down upon their heads the plagues that + are written in the book. <em>Ten</em> commandments constitute the brief + compend of human duty. <em>Two</em> of these brand slavery as sin. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_Ex21_16"></a> + MANSTEALING—EXAMINATION OF EX. XXI. 16. + + </h3> + <p> + The giving of the law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promulgation + of that body of laws called the "Mosaic system." Over the + gateway of that system, fearful words were written by the finger of + God—"HE THAT STEALETH A MAN AND SELLETH HIM, OR IF HE + BE FOUND IN HIS HAND, HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO + DEATH<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN3"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN3"></a>." Ex. xxi. 16. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN3"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN3">A</a>: A writer in the American Quarterly Review, + commenting on this passage, thus blasphemes. "On this passage an impression + has gone abroad that slave-owners are necessarily menstealers; how hastily, + any one will perceive who consults the passage in its connection. Being found + in the chapter which authorizes this species of property among the Hebrews, + it must of course relate to <em>its full protection from the danger of + being enticed away from its rightful owner."</em>—Am. Quart. Review + for June, 1833. Article "Negro slavery." + </p> + <p> + The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought + for their deliverance, proclaim the reason for such a law at such a time. + They had just been emancipated. The tragedies of their house of bondage + were the realities of yesterday, and peopled their memories with + + thronging horrors. They had just witnessed God's testimony against + oppression in the plagues of Egypt—the burning blains on man and + beast; the dust quickened into loathsome life, and swarming upon every + living thing; the streets, the palaces, the temples, and every house + heaped up with the carcases of things abhorred; the kneading troughs + and ovens, the secret chambers and the couches, reeking and dissolving + with the putrid death; the pestilence walking in darkness at noonday, + the devouring locusts, and hail mingled with fire, the first-born + death-struck, and the waters blood; and last of all, that dread high hand + and stretched-out arm, that whelmed the monarch and his hosts, and + strewed their corpses on the sea. All this their eyes had looked upon; + earth's proudest city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying in desolation, + and the doom of oppressors traced on her ruins in the hand-writing of + God, glaring in letters of fire mingled with blood—a blackened monument + of wrath to the uttermost against the stealers of men. No wonder + that God, in a code of laws prepared for such a people at such a + time, should uprear on its foreground a blazing beacon to flash terror + on slaveholders. "<em>He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be + found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."</em> Ex. xxi. 16. Deut. + xxiv, 7<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN4"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN4"></a>. God's cherubim and flaming + sword guarding the entrance to the Mosaic system! + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN4"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN4">A</a>: Jarchi, the most eminent of the Jewish + Commentators, who wrote seven hundred years ago, in his comment on this + stealing and making merchandize of men, gives the meaning thus:—"Using + a man against his will, as a servant lawfully purchased; yea, though he + should use his services ever so little, only to the value of a farthing, or + use but his arm to lean on to support him, <em>if he be forced so to act as + a servant</em>, the person compelling him but once to do so, shall die as + a thief, whether he has sold him or not." + </p> + <p> + The word <i>Gānābh</i> + here rendered <i>stealeth,</i> means, the taking of what + belongs to another, whether by violence or fraud; the same word + is used in the eight commandment, and prohibits both robbery and + theft. + + </p> + <p> + The crime specified, is that of depriving SOMEBODY of the ownership + of a man. Is this somebody a master? and is the crime that of depriving + a master of his servant? Then it would have been "he that stealeth" + a <i>servant</i>, not "he that stealeth a + <i>man</i>." If the crime had been the taking of an + individual from <em>another</em>, then the <em>term</em> used would + have been expressive of that relation, and most especially if it was the + relation of property and <i>proprietor!</i></p> + <p> + The crime is stated in a three-fold form—man <em>stealing</em>, + <em>selling</em>, and + <em>holding</em>. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one + penalty—<b>DEATH</b><a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN5"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN5"></a>. This <em>somebody</em> deprived of the ownership of a + man, is the <em>man himself</em>, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph + said, "Indeed I was <em>stolen</em> away out of the land of the Hebrews." + Gen. xl. 15. How <em>stolen?</em> His brethren sold him as an article of + merchandize. Contrast this penalty for <i>man</i>-stealing + with that for <i>property</i>-stealing, Ex. xxii. 14. If + a man had stolen an <em>ox</em> and killed or sold it, he was + to restore five oxen; if he had neither sold nor killed it, two oxen. + But in the case of stealing a <em>man</em>, the <em>first</em> act + drew down the utmost power of punishment; however often repeated or aggravated + the crime, human penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty for + <i>man</i>-stealing was death, and the penalty for + <i>property</i>-stealing, the mere restoration of double, + shows that the two cases were adjudicated on totally different principles. + The man stolen might be diseased or totally past labor, consequently + instead of being profitable to the thief, he would be a tax + upon him, yet death was still the penalty, though not a cent's worth of + <i>property-value</i> was taken. The penalty for stealing + property was a mere property-penalty. However large the theft, the payment of + double wiped out the score. It might have a greater money value than + a thousand men, yet death was not the penalty, nor maiming, nor + braiding, nor even stripes, but double <em>of the same kind</em>. Why was + not the rule uniform? When a <em>man</em> was stolen why was not the thief + required to restore double of the same kind—two men, or if he had + sold him, five men? Do you say that the man-thief might not <em>have</em> + them? So the ox-thief might not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, + five. But if God permitted men to hold <em>men</em> as property, equally + with oxen, the man-thief, could get men with whom to pay the penalty, + as well as the ox-thief, oxen. Further, when property was stolen, the + legal penalty was a compensation to the person injured. But when + a <em>man</em> was stolen, no property compensation was offered. To tender + money as an equivalent, would have been to repeat the outrage with + intolerable aggravations. Compute the value of a MAN in <em>money!</em> + Throw dust into the scale against immortality! The law recoiled + from such supreme insult and impiety. To have permitted the man-thief + to expiate his crime by restoring double, would have been making + the repetition of crime its atonement. But the infliction of death for + man-stealing exacted the utmost possibility of reparation. It wrung + from the guilty wretch as he gave up the ghost, the testimony of blood, + + and death-groans, to the infinite dignity and worth of man,—a proclamation + to the universe, voiced in mortal agony, "MAN IS INVIOLABLE."—a + confession shrieked in phrenzy at the grave's mouth—"I die accursed, + and God is just." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN5"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN5">A</a>: "Those + are <i>men-stealers</i> who abduct, + <i>keep</i>, sell, or buy slaves or freemen." + GROTIUS. + </p> + <p> + If God permitted man to hold man as property, why did he punish + for stealing that kind of property infinitely more than for stealing any + other kind of property? Why punish with death for stealing a very + little of <em>that</em> sort of property, and make a mere fine the penalty + for stealing a thousand times as much, of any other sort of + property—especially + if by his own act, God had annihilated the difference between + man and <i>property</i>, by putting him on a level with + it? + + </p> + <p> + The guilt of a crime, depends much upon the nature, character, and + condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the thief, or + whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a full man, is theft; to + steal it from a starving man, is both theft and murder. If I steal my + neighbor's property, the crime consists not in altering the + <em>nature</em> of the + article, but in taking as <em>mine</em> what is <em>his</em>. But + when I take my neighbor himself, and first make him + <i>property</i>, and then <em>my</em> property, the + latter act, which was the sole crime in the former case, dwindles to + nothing. The sin in stealing a man, is not the transfer from its owner + to another of that which is already property, but the turning of + <i>personality</i> + into <i>property</i>. True, the attributes of man remain, + but the rights + and immunities which grow out of them are annihilated. It is the + first law both of reason and revelation, to regard things and beings as + they are; and the sum of religion, to feel and act toward them according + to their value. Knowingly to treat them otherwise is sin; and + the degree of violence done to their nature, relations, and value, measures + its guilt. When things are sundered which God has indissolubly + joined, or confounded in one, which he has separated by infinite + extremes; when sacred and eternal distinctions, which he has garnished + with glory, are derided and set at nought, then, if ever, sin reddens + to its "scarlet dye." The sin specified in the passage, is that of + doing violence to the <i>nature</i> of a + <i>man</i>—to his intrinsic value as a rational + being. In the verse preceding the one under consideration, and + in that which follows, the same principle is laid down. Verse 15, + "He that smiteth his father or his mother shall surely be put to + death." Verse. 17, "He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely + be put to death." If a Jew smote his neighbor, the law merely + smote him in return; but if the blow was given to a + <i>parent</i>, it struck + the smiter dead. The parental relation is the <em>centre</em> of human + society. + God guards it with peculiar care. To violate that, is to violate all. + + Whoever tramples on that, shows that <em>no</em> relation has any + sacredness + in his eyes—that he is unfit to move among human relations who violates + one so sacred and tender. Therefore, the Mosaic law uplifted + his bleeding corpse, and brandished the ghastly terror around the parental + relation to guard it from impious inroads. + + </p> + <p> + Why such a difference in penalties, for the same act? Answer. 1. + The relation violated was obvious—the distinction between parents and + others self-evident, dictated by a law of nature. 2. The act was violence + to nature—a suicide on constitutional susceptibilities. 3. The + parental relation then, as now, was the focal point of the social system, + and required powerful safe-guards. "<em>Honor thy father and + thy mother</em>," stands at the head of those commands which prescribe the + duties of man to man; and throughout the Bible, the parental state is + God's favorite illustration of his own relations to the human family. + In this case, death was to be inflicted not for smiting a + <i>man,</i> but a + <i>parent</i>—<em>a distinction</em> made sacred by + God, and fortified by a bulwark + of defence. In the next verse, "He that stealeth a man," &c., the + SAME PRINCIPLE is wrought out in still stronger relief. The crime to + be punished with death was not the taking of property from its owner, + but violence to an <em>immortal nature</em>, the blotting out of a + sacred <em>distinction</em>—making + MEN "chattels." + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_Ex21_16_mnbst"></a> + The incessant pains taken in the Old Testament to separate human + beings from brutes and things, shows God's regard for this, his own + distinction. + "In the beginning" he proclaimed it to the universe as it rose + into being. Creation stood up at the instant of its birth, to do it homage. + It paused in adoration while God ushered forth its crowning work. + Why that dread pause and that creating arm held back in mid career + and that high conference in the godhead? "Let us make man in OUR + IMAGE after OUR LIKENESS, and let him have dominion over the fish of + the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all + the earth." Then while every living thing, with land, and sea, and + firmament, and marshalled worlds, waited to swell the shout of morning + stars—then God created man IN HIS OWN IMAGE; IN THE IMAGE OF + GOD created he him." This solves the problem, IN THE IMAGE + OF GOD, CREATED HE HIM. This distinction is often repeated + and always with great solemnity. In Gen. i. 26-28, it is expressed in + various forms. In Gen. v. 1, we find it again, "IN THE LIKENESS OF + GOD MADE HE HIM." In Gen. ix. 6, again. After giving license to shed + the blood of "every moving thing that liveth," it is added, "<em>Whoso + sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for</em> IN THE IMAGE + OF GOD MADE HE MAN." As though it had been said, "All these creatures + + are your property, designed for your use—they have the likeness of + earth, and their spirits go downward; but this other being, MAN, has + my own likeness: IN THE IMAGE OF GOD made I man; an intelligent, + moral, immortal agent, invited to all that I can give and he can be. So + in Lev. xxiv. 17, 18, 21, "He that killeth any MAN shall surely be put + to death; and he that killeth a beast shall make it good, beast for beast; + and he that killeth a MAN he shall be put to death." So in Ps. viii. 5, + 6, we have an enumeration of particulars, each separating infinitely + MEN from brutes and things! 1. "<em>Thou hast made him a little lower + than the angels."</em> Slavery drags him down among <em>brutes.</em> + 2. <em>"And + hast crowned him with glory and honor."</em> Slavery tears off his crown, + and puts on a <em>yoke</em>. 3. <em>"Thou madest him to have + dominion</em><a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN6"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN6"></a> OVER <em>the + works of thy hands."</em> Slavery breaks his sceptre, and cast him down + <em>among</em> those works—yea, <em>beneath them</em>. + 4. <em>"Thou hast put all things + under his feet</em>." Slavery puts HIM under the feet of an "owner." + Who, but an impious scorner, dare thus strive with his Maker, and + mutilate HIS IMAGE, and blaspheme the Holy One, who saith, <em>"Inasmuch + as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it unto ME.</em>" + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN6"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN6">A</a>: "Thou madest him to have dominion." + In Gen. i. 28, God says to man, + <em>"Have dominion</em> over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of + the air and over + every living thing that moveth upon the earth," thus vesting in + <em>every</em> human + being the right of ownership over the earth, its products and animal life, + and in <em>each</em> human being the <em>same</em> right. By so doing + God prohibited the exercise of ownership by man over <em>man</em>; for the + grant to <em>all</em> men of <em>equal</em> ownership, for + ever <em>shut</em> out the possibility of their exercising ownership over + <em>each other</em>, as whoever is the owner of a <em>man</em>, is + the owner of his <em>right of property</em>—in other + words, when one man becomes the property of another his rights become such + too, his <em>right of property</em> is transferred to his "owner," and + thus as far as <em>himself</em> + is concerned, is annihilated. Finally, by originally vesting <em>all</em> + men with dominion or ownership over property, God proclaimed the + <em>right of all</em> to exercise + it, and pronounced every man who takes it away a robber of the highest + grade. Such is every slaveholder. + </p> + <p> + In further prosecuting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems + will be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, + and as many regulations of the latter are mere + <i>legal</i> forms of Divine + institutions previously existing. As a <em>system</em>, the latter alone + is of Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs + God has not made them our exemplars.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN7"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN7"></a> The question + to be settled by us, + <a name="E4r4_17"></a> + is not what were Jewish <em>customs</em>, but what were the rules that + God gave for the regulation of those customs. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN7"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN7">B</a>: Those who insist + that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit with such delight + under their shadow, hymning the praises of "those good old slaveholders and + patriarchs," might at small cost greatly augment their numbers. A single + stanza celebrating patriarchal <em>concubinage</em>, winding off with a + chorus in honor of patriarchal <em>drunkenness</em>, would be a + trumpet-call, summoning from brothels, bush and brake, highway and hedge, and + sheltering fence, a brotherhood of kindred + affinities, each claiming Abraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, + "My name is legion." A myriad choir and thunderous song! + </p> + <p> + Before entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under + these two states of society, we will consider the import of certain terms + which describe the mode of procuring them. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_buy"></a> + IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY." + + </h3> + <p> + As the Israelites were commanded to "buy" their servants, and as + Abraham had servants "bought with money," it is argued that servants + were articles of property! The sole ground for this belief is <em>the + terms themselves!</em> How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing + to be proved were always <em>assumed</em>! To beg the question in debate, + is vast economy of midnight oil, and a wholesale forestaller of + wrinkles and gray hairs. Instead of protracted investigation into + Scripture usage, painfully collating passages, to settle the meaning of + terms, let every man interpret the oldest book in the world by the usages + of his own time and place, and the work is done. And then instead + of one revelation, they might be multiplied as the drops of the morning, + and every man have an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, in the + dialect of his own neighborhood! What a Babel-jargon, to take it for + granted that the sense in which words are <em>now</em> used, is the + <em>inspired</em> sense. David says, "I prevented the dawning of the + morning, and cried." What, stop the earth in its revolution! Two hundred years + ago, <i>prevent</i> was used in its strict Latin sense, + to <em>come before</em>, or <em>anticipate</em>. It + is always used in this sense in the Old and New Testaments. David's + expression, in the English of the nineteenth century, would be "Before + the dawning of the morning I cried." In almost every chapter of the + Bible, words are used in a sense now nearly, or quite obsolete, and + sometimes in a sense totally <em>opposite</em> to their present meaning. + A few examples follow: "I purposed to come to you, but was + <i>let</i> (hindered) + hitherto." "And the four <i>beasts</i> (living ones) fell + down and worshiped + God,"—"Whosoever shall <i>offend</i> (cause to sin) one + of these little + ones,"—Go out into the highways and <i>compel</i> (urge) + them to come + in,"—Only let your <i>conversation</i> (habitual conduct) + be as becometh the + Gospel,"—"The Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the + <i>quick</i> (living) + and the dead,"—They that seek me <i>early</i> (earnestly) + shall find me," + + So when tribulation or persecution ariseth + <i>by-and-by</i> (immediately) they + are offended." Nothing is more mutable than language. Words, like + bodies, are always throwing off some particles and absorbing others. + So long as they are mere representatives, elected by the whims of universal + suffrage, their meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it + up for the next century is an employment sufficiently silly (to speak + within bounds) for a modern Bible-Dictionary maker. There never + was a shallower conceit than that of establishing the sense attached to + a word centuries ago, by showing what it means <em>now</em>. Pity that + fashionable + mantuamakers were not a little quicker at taking hints from + some Doctors of Divinity. How easily they might save their pious + customers all qualms of conscience about the weekly shiftings of fashion, + by proving that the last importation of Parisian indecency now "showing + off" on promenade, was the very style of dress in which the modest + and pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the angels. Since such a fashion + flaunts along Broadway <em>now</em>, it <em>must</em> have trailed + over Canaan four thousand years ago! + + </p> + <p> + The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of + servants, means procuring them as <i>chattels</i>, seems + based upon the fallacy, + that whatever <em>costs</em> money <em>is</em> money; that whatever or + whoever + you pay money <em>for</em>, is an article of property, and the fact of + your paying for it, <em>proves</em> it property. 1. The children of + Israel were required + to purchase their firstborn from under the obligations of the priesthood, + Num. xviii. 15, 16; iii. 45-51; Ex. xiii. 13; xxxiv. 20. This + custom still exists among the Jews, and the word + <i>buy</i> is still used to describe + the transaction. Does this prove that their firstborn were or + are, held as property? They were <i>bought</i> as really + as were <em>servants</em>. 2. The Israelites were required to pay money + for their own souls. + This is called sometimes a ransom, sometimes an atonement. Were + their souls therefore marketable commodities? 3. When the Israelites + set apart themselves or their children to the Lord by vow, for the performance + of some service, an express statute provided that a + <i>price</i> + should be set upon the "<em>persons</em>," and it prescribed the manner + and <em>terms</em> of the "estimation" or valuation, by the payment of + which, the persons might be <em>bought off</em> from the service vowed. + The <em>price</em> for + males from one month old to five years, was five shekels, for females, + three; from five years old to twenty, for males, twenty shekels, for females, + ten; from twenty years old to sixty, for males, fifty shekels, for + females, thirty; above sixty years old, for males, fifteen shekels, for + females, + ten, Lev. xxvii. 2-8. What egregious folly to contend that all + these descriptions of persons were goods and chattels because they + + were <em>bought</em> and their <em>prices</em> regulated by law! + 4. Bible saints <i>bought</i> + their wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the + wife of Mahlon, have I <i>purchased</i> (bought) to be my + wife." Ruth iv. 10.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN8"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN8"></a> Hosea bought his wife. "So I <i>bought</i> + her to me for fifteen + pieces of silver, and for an homer of Barley, and an half homer of + barley." Hosea iii. 2. Jacob bought his wives Rachael and Leah, + and not having money, paid for them in labor—seven years a piece. + Gen. xxix. 15-23. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, + and paid for her by his labor, as the servant of her + father.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN9"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN9"></a> Exod. ii. 21. + Shechem, when negotiating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, + says, "Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according + as ye shall say unto me." Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David purchased + Michael, and Othniel, Achsah, by performing perilous services for the + fathers of the damsels. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27; Judg. i. 12, 13. That + the purchase of wives, either with money or by service, was the general + practice, is plain from such passages as Ex. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. + xviii. 25. Among the modern Jews this usage exists, though now a + mere form, there being no <em>real</em> purchase. Yet among their marriage + ceremonies, is one called "marrying by the penny." The similarity + in the methods of procuring wives and servants, in the terms employed + in describing the transactions, and in the prices paid for each, are + worthy of notice. The highest price of wives (virgins) and servants + was the same. Comp. Deut, xxii. 28, 29, and Ex. xxii. 17, with Lev. + xxvii. 2-8. The <i>medium</i> price of wives and servants + was the same. + Comp. Hos. iii. 2, with Ex. xxi. 32. Hosea seems to have paid one + half in money and the other half in grain. Further, the Israelitish + female bought-servants were <i>wives</i>, their husbands + and masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3, 27. If + <em>buying</em> servants + proves them property, buying wives proves <em>them</em> property. Why not + contend that the <i>wives</i> of the ancient fathers of + the faithful were their + "chattels," and used as ready change at a pinch; and thence deduce + + the rights of modern husbands? Alas! Patriarchs and prophets are + followed afar off! When will pious husbands live up to their Bible + privileges, and become partakers with Old Testament worthies in the + blessedness of a husband's rightful immunities! Refusing so to do, is + questioning the morality of those "good old slaveholders and patriarchs, + Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN8"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN8">A</a>: In the verse preceding, Boaz + says, "I have <i>bought</i> all that was Elimelech's + * * * of the hand of Naomi." In the original, the same word + (kānā) is + used in both verses. In the 9th, "a parcel of land" is "bought," in the 10th a + "wife" is "bought." If the Israelites had been as profound at inferences as + our modern Commentators, they would have put such a fact as this to the + rack till they had tortured out of it a divine warrant for holding their wives + as property and speculating in the article whenever it happened to be + scarce. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN9"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN9">B</a>: This custom still prevails in some eastern + countries. The Crim Tartars, who are poor, serve an apprenticeship for their + wives, during which they live under the same roof with them and at the close + of it are adopted into the family. + </p> + <p> + This use of the word buy, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. In the + Syriac, the common expression for "the espoused," is "the bought." + Even so late as the 16th century, the common record of + <i>marriages</i> in + the old German Chronicles was, "A BOUGHT B." + + </p> + <p> + The word translated <i>buy</i>, is, like other words, + modified by the nature of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, "I + have <i>gotten</i> (bought) + a man from the Lord." She named him Cain, that is + <i>bought</i>. "He + that heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) understanding," Prov. xv. 32. + So in Isa. xi. 11. "The Lord shall set his hand again to recover (to + <i>buy</i>) the remnant of his people." So + Ps. lxxviii. 54. "He brought + them to his mountain which his right hand had + <i>purchased</i>," (gotten.) + Neh. v. 8. "We of our ability have <i>redeemed</i> + (bought) our brethren + the Jews, that were sold unto the heathen." Here + "<i>bought</i>" is not + applied to persons reduced to servitude, but to those taken <em>out</em> + of it. + Prov. viii. 22. "The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of + his way." Prov. xix. 8. "He that <i>getteth</i> (buyeth) + wisdom loveth + his own soul." Finally, to <i>buy</i> is a + <em>secondary</em> meaning of the Hebrew + word <i>kānā</i>. + + </p> + <p> + Even at this day the word <i>buy</i> is used to describe + the procuring of + servants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West Indies, + where slaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still, (1837,) + "bought." This is the current word in West India newspapers. Ten + years since servants were "<i>bought</i>" in New York, + and still are in New + Jersey, as really as in Virginia, yet the different senses in which the + word is used in those states, puts no man in a quandary. Under the + system of legal <i>indenture</i> in Illinois, servants + now are "<i>bought</i>."<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN10"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN10"></a> Until + recently immigrants to this country were "bought" in great + numbers. By voluntary contract they engaged to work a given time + to pay for their passage. This class of persons, called "redemptioners," + + consisted at one time of thousands. Multitudes are "bought" <em>out</em> + of slavery by themselves or others. Under the same roof with the writer + is a "servant bought with money." A few weeks since, she was a + slave; when "bought," she was a slave no longer. Alas! for our + leading politicians if "buying" men makes them "chattels." The + Whigs say, that Calhoun has been "bought" by the administration; + and the other party, that Clay and Webster have been "bought" by + the Bank. The histories of the revolution tell us that Benedict Arnold + was "bought" by British gold, and that Williams, Paulding, and Van + Wert, could not be "bought" by Major Andre. When a northern + clergyman marries a rich southern widow, country gossip thus hits off + the indecency, "The cotton bags <i>bought</i> him." Sir + Robert Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it, can + <i>buy</i> him," + and John Randolph said, "The northern delegation is in the market; + give me money enough, and I can <i>buy</i> them." The + temperance publications + tell us that candidates for office <i>buy</i> men with + whiskey; and + the oracles of street tattle, that the court, district attorney, and jury, + in the late trial of Robinson were <i>bought</i>, yet we + have no floating + visions of "chattels personal," man-auctions, or coffles. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN10"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN10">A</a>: The + following statute is now in force in the free state of Illinois—"No negro, + mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time <i>purchase</i> any + servant other than of + their own complexion: and if any of the persons aforesaid shall presume to + <i>purchase</i> a white servant, such servant shall + immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and taken." + </p> + <p> + In Connecticut, town paupers are "bought" by individuals, who, for + a stipulated sum become responsible to the town for their comfortable + support for one year. If these "bought" persons perform any labor + for those who "buy" them, it is wholly <em>voluntary</em>. It is hardly + necessary + to add that they are in no sense the "property" of their + purchasers.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN11"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN11"></a></p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN11"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN11">A</a>: "The select-men" of each town annually + give notice, that at such a time and + place, they will proceed to <em>sell</em> the poor of said town. The + persons thus "sold" are "bought" by such persons, approved by the + "select-men," as engage to furnish them with sufficient wholesome food, + adequate clothing, shelter, medicine, &c., for such a sum as the parties + may agree upon. The Connecticut papers frequently + contain advertisements like the following: + + </p> + <p> + "NOTICE—The poor of the town of Chatham will be SOLD on the first + Monday in April, 1837, at the house of F. Penfield, Esq., at 9 o'clock in the + forenoon,"—[Middletown Sentinel, Feb. 3, 1837.] + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_buy_selves"></a> + The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to + the use of "buy" and "bought with money." Gen. xlvii. 18-26. + The Egyptians proposed to Joseph to become servants. When the + bargain was closed, Joseph said, "Behold I have + <i>bought you</i> this day," + and yet it is plain that neither party regarded the persons + <i>bought</i> as + articles of property, but merely as bound to labor on certain conditions, + to pay for their support during the famine. The idea attached + + by both parties to "buy us," and "behold I have bought you," was + merely that of service voluntarily offered, and secured by contract, in + return, for <em>value received</em>, and not at all that the Egyptians + were bereft of their personal ownership, and made articles of property. And + this buying of <i>services</i> (in this case it was but + one-fifth part) is called in Scripture usage, <i>buying the + persons</i>. This case claims special notice, + as it is the only one where the whole transaction of buying servants is + detailed—the preliminaries, the process, the mutual acquiescence, and + the permanent relation resulting therefrom. In all other instances, the + mere fact is stated without particulars. In this case, the whole process + is laid open. 1. The persons "bought," <em>sold themselves</em>, and of + their own accord. 2. Paying for the permanent + <i>service</i> of persons, or even a + portion of it, is called "buying" those persons; just as paying for the + <i>use</i> of land or houses for a number of years in + succession is called + in Scripture usage <i>buying</i> them. See + Lev. xxv. 28, 33, and xxvii. 24. + The objector, at the outset, takes it for granted, that servants were + bought of <em>third</em> persons; and thence infers that they were + articles of + property. Both the alleged fact and the inference are <em>sheer + assumptions</em>. + No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in + which a <em>master sold his servant</em>. + + </p> + <p> + That servants who were "bought," <em>sold themselves</em>, is a fair + inference from various passages of Scripture.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN12"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN12"></a> In Leviticus xxv. 47, the + <a name="E4r4_23"></a> + case of the Israelite, who became the servant of the stranger, the + words are, "If he SELL HIMSELF unto the stranger." Yet the 51st + verse informs us that this servant was "BOUGHT" and that the + price of his purchase was paid to <em>himself</em>. The <em>same + word</em>, and the same <em>form</em> of the word, which, in verse 47, + is rendered <em>sell himself</em>, is + in verse 39 of the same chapter, rendered <em>be sold</em>; in + Deut. xxviii. 68, + the same word is rendered "be sold." "And there ye shall BE SOLD + unto your enemies for bond-men and bond-women and NO MAN SHALL + BUY YOU." How could they "<em>be sold</em>" without <em>being + bought</em>? Our + translation makes it nonsense. The word + <i>Mākar</i> rendered "<i>be + sold</i>" + is used here in Hithpael conjugation, which is generally reflexive in + its force, and like the middle voice in Greek, represents what an individual + does for himself, and should manifestly have been rendered "ye + shall <i>offer yourselves</i> for sale, and there shall be + no purchaser." For a clue to Scripture usage on this point, see + 1 Kings xxi. 20. 25.—"Thou + hast <i>sold thyself</i> to work evil." "There was none + like unto Ahab which did sell <em>himself</em> to work wickedness."—2 + Kings xvii. 17. + "They used divination and enchantments, and <i>sold + themselves</i> to do + evil."—Isa. l. 1. "For your iniquities have ye <i>sold + yourselves."</i> + Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have <i>sold yourselves</i> FOR NOUGHT, + and ye shall be redeemed without money." See also, Jer. xxxiv. 14; Rom. vii. + 14, vi. 16; John, viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians, already + quoted. In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is generally + stated that they were bought of <em>third</em> persons. If + <i>servants</i> were + bought of third persons, it is strange that no <em>instance</em> of it is + on record. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN12"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN12">A</a>: Those + who insist that the servants which the Israelites were commanded to + buy of "the heathen which were round about" them, were to be bought of + <em>third persons</em>, + virtually charge God with the inconsistency of recognizing and affirming + the right of those very persons to freedom, upon whom, say they, he pronounced + the doom of slavery. For they tell us, that the sentence of death uttered + against those heathen was commuted into slavery, which punishment God + denounced against them. Now if "the heathen round about" were doomed to + slavery, the <em>sellers</em> were doomed as well as the + <em>sold</em>. Where, we ask, did the sellers get their + right to sell? God by commanding the Israelites to BUY, affirmed the right of + <em>somebody</em> to <em>sell</em>, and that the + <em>ownership</em> of what was sold existed <em>somewhere</em>; which + <em>right</em> and ownership he commanded them to <em>recognize</em> + and <em>respect</em>. We repeat the question, where did the heathen + <em>sellers</em> get their right to sell, since <em>they</em> were + dispossessed of their right to <em>themselves</em> and doomed to slavery + equally with those whom they sold. Did God's decree vest in them a right to + <em>others</em> while it annulled + their right to <em>themselves</em>? If, as the objector's argument + assumes, one part of "the heathen round about" were <em>already</em> held + as slaves by the other part, <em>such</em> + of course were not <em>doomed</em> to slavery, for they were already + slaves. So also, if those heathen who held them as slaves had a + <em>right</em> to hold them, which right + God commanded the Israelites to <em>buy out</em>, thus requiring them to + recognize <em>it</em> as a <em>right</em>, and on no account to + procure its transfer to themselves without paying + to the holders an equivalent, surely, these + <i>slaveholders</i> were not doomed by God + to be slaves, for according to the objector, God had himself affirmed their + right <em>to hold others as slaves</em>, and commanded his people to + respect it. + </p> + <p> + We now proceed to inquire into the <em>condition</em> of servants under + the patriarchal and Mosaic systems. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_rights"></a> + I. THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF SERVANTS. + + </h3> + <p> + The leading design of the laws defining the relations of master and + servant, was the good of both parties—more especially the good of the + <em>servants</em>. While the master's interests were guarded + from injury, + those of the servants were <em>promoted</em>. These laws made a merciful + provision for the poorer classes, both of the Israelites and Strangers, + not laying on burdens, but lightening them—they were a grant of + <em>privileges</em> and <em>favors</em>. + + </p> + <p> + I. BUYING SERVANTS WAS REGARDED AS A KINDNESS TO THE PERSONS + BOUGHT, and as establishing between them and their purchasers + a bond of affection and confidence. This is plain from the frequent + + use of it to illustrate the love and care of God for his chosen people. + Deut. xxxii. 6; Ex. xv. 16; Ps. lxxiv. 2; Prov. viii. 22. + + </p> + <p> + II. NO STRANGER COULD JOIN THE FAMILY OF AN ISRAELITE WITHOUT + BECOMING A PROSELYTE. Compliance with this condition was the + <em>price of the privilege</em>. Gen. xvii. 9-14, 23, 27. In other + words, to become a servant was virtually to become an + Israelite.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN13"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN13"></a> In + the light + of this fact, look at the relation sustained by a proselyted servant to + his master. Was it a sentence consigning to + <i>punishment</i>, or a ticket + of admission to <i>privileges</i>? + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN13"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN13">A</a>: The rites by which a stranger became a + proselyte transformed him into a Jew. Compare 1 Chron. ii. 17, with + 2 Sam. xvii. 25. In Esther viii. 17, it is said "Many of the people of the + land <i>became Jews</i>." In the Septuagint, the passage + is thus rendered, "Many of the heathen were circumcised and became + Jews." The intimate union and incorporation of the proselytes with the Hebrews + is shown by such passages as Isa. lvi. 6, 7, 8; + Eph. ii. 11, 22; Num. x. 29-32. + Calmet, Art. Proselyte, says "They were admitted to all the prerogatives + of the people of the Lord." Mahommed doubtless borrowed from the laws and + usages of the Jews, his well known regulation for admitting to all civil and + religious privileges, all proselytes of whatever nation or religion. + </p> + <p> + III. EXPULSION FROM THE FAMILY WAS THE DEPRIVATION OF A PRIVILEGE + IF NOT A PUNISHMENT. When Sarah took umbrage at the conduct + of Hagar and Ishmael, her servants, "She said unto Abraham + <em>cast out</em> this bond-woman and her son." * * And Abraham rose + up early in the morning and took bread and a bottle of water and gave + it unto Hagar and the child, and <em>sent her away</em>. Gen. xxi. 10, 14; + in Luke xvi. 1-8, our Lord tells us of the steward or head-servant of + a rich man who defrauded his master, and was, in consequence, excluded + from his household. The servant anticipating such a punishment, + says, "I am resolved what to do, that when I am <em>put out</em> of the + stewardship, they may receive me into their houses." The case of + Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, appears to be a similar one. He was + guilty of fraud in procuring a large sum of money from Naaman, and + of deliberate lying to his master, on account of which Elisha seems + to have discarded him. 2 Kings v. 20-27. In this connection we + may add that if a servant neglected the observance of any ceremonial + rite, and was on that account excommunicated from the congregation + of Israel, such excommunication excluded him also from the + <i>family</i> of an Israelite. In other words he could + be a <i>servant</i> no longer than he was an + <i>Israelite</i>. To forfeit the latter + <em>distinction</em> involved the forfeiture of the former + <i>privilege</i>—which proves that it + <em>was</em> a privilege. + + </p> + <p> + IV. THE HEBREW SERVANT COULD COMPEL HIS MASTER TO KEEP HIM. + + </p> + <p> + When the six years' contract had expired, if the servant <em>demanded</em> + it, the law <em>obliged</em> the master to retain him permanently, however + little he might need his services. Deut. xv. 12-17; Ex. xxi. 2-6. + This shows that the system was framed to advance the interest and + gratify the wishes of the servant quite as much as those of the + master. + + </p> + <p> + V. SERVANTS WERE ADMITTED INTO COVENANT WITH GOD. Deut. + xxix. 10-13. + + </p> + <p> + VI. THEY WERE GUESTS AT ALL NATIONAL AND FAMILY FESTIVALS + Ex. xii. 43-44; Deut xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16. + + </p> + <p> + VII. THEY WERE STATEDLY INSTRUCTED IN MORALITY AND RELIGION. + Deut. xxxi. 10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35; 2 Chron. xvii. 8-9, xxxv. + 3, and xxxiv. 30. Neh. viii. 7, 8. + + </p> + <p> + VIII. THEY WERE RELEASED FROM THEIR REGULAR LABOR NEARLY + ONE HALF OF THE WHOLE TIME. During which they had their entire + support, and the same instruction that was provided for the other members + of the Hebrew community. The Law secured to them, + + </p> + <p> + 1. <em>Every seventh year;</em> Lev. xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who + were servants during the entire period between the jubilees, + <em>eight whole years</em>, (including the jubilee year,) of unbroken + rest. + + </p> + <p> + 2. <em>Every seventh day.</em> This in forty-two years, the eight being + subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just <em>six years</em>. + + </p> + <p> + 3. <em>The three annual festivals.</em> Ex. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23. + The <i>Passover</i>, + which commenced on the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven + days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which + began on the 6th day of the 3d month, and lasted seven days. Deut. + xvi. 10, 11. The Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the + 15th of the 7th month, and lasted eight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. + xxiii. 34-39. As all met in one place, much time would be spent on + the journey. Cumbered caravans move slowly. After their arrival, + a day or two would be requisite for divers preparations before the + celebration, besides some time at the close of it, in preparations for return. + If we assign three weeks to each festival—including the time + spent on the journeys, and the delays before and after the celebration, + together with the <em>festival week</em>, it will be a small allowance + for the cessation of their regular labor. As there were three festivals in the + year, the main body of the servants would be absent from their stated + employments at least <em>nine weeks annually</em>, which + would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the sabbaths, to six years and + eighty-four days. + + </p> + <p> + 4. <em>The new moons</em>. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says + + that the Jews always kept <em>two</em> days for the new moon. See Calmet + on the Jewish Calendar, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx, + 18, 19, 27. This, in forty-two years, would be two years 280 + days. + + </p> + <p> + 5. <em>The feast of trumpets</em>. On the first day of the seventh + month, and of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25. + + </p> + <p> + 6. <em>The atonement day</em>. On the tenth of the seventh month Lev. + xxiii. 27. + + </p> + <p> + These two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not + reckoned above. + + </p> + <p> + Thus it appears that those who continued servants during the period + between the jubilees, were by law released from their labor, TWENTY-THREE + YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and those + who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In this calculation, + besides making a donation of all the <em>fractions</em> to the objector, + we have left out those numerous <em>local</em> festivals to which + frequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; 1 Sam. ix. 12. 22. etc., and the + various <em>family</em> festivals, such as at the weaning of children; + at marriages; at sheep shearings; at circumcisions; at the making of + covenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in 1 Sam, xx. 6. 28, + 29. Neither have we included the festivals instituted at a later period of the + Jewish history—the feast of Purim, Esth. ix. 28, 29; and of the + Dedication, which lasted eight days. John x. 22; 1 Mac. iv. 59. + + </p> + <p> + Finally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time + which, if distributed, would be almost ONE HALF OF THE DAYS IN EACH + YEAR. Meanwhile, they were supported, and furnished with opportunities + of instruction. If this time were distributed over <em>every day</em>, the + servants would have to themselves nearly <em>one half of each day</em>. + + </p> + <p> + The service of those Strangers who were <i>national</i> + servants or tributaries, was regulated upon the same benevolent principle, + and secured to them TWO-THIRDS of the whole year. "A month they were in + Lebanon, and two months they were at home." 1 Kings, v. 13-15. + Compared with 2 Chron. 11. 17-19, viii. 7-9; 1 Kings, ix 20. 22. + The regulations under which the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, + Beeroth and Kirjath-jearim, (afterwards called + <i>Nethinims</i>) performed + service for the Israelites, must have secured to them nearly the whole of + their time. If, as is probable, they served in courses corresponding + to those of their priests whom they assisted, they were in actual service + less than one month annually. + + </p> + <p> + IX. THE SERVANT WAS PROTECTED BY LAW EQUALLY WITH THE + OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY + + </p> + <p> + Proof.—"Judge righteously between every man and his brother + and THE STRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM." "Ye shall not RESPECT PERSONS + in judgment, but ye shall hear the SMALL as well as the great." + Deut. i. 16, 19. Also Lev. xix. 15. xxiv. 22. "Ye shall have one + manner of law as well for the STRANGER, as for one of your own country." + So Num. xv. 29. "Ye shall have ONE LAW for him that sinneth + through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of + Israel and for the STRANGER that sojourneth among them." Deut. + xxvii. 19. "Cursed be he that PERVERTETH THE JUDGMENT OF THE + STRANGER."<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN14"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN14"></a> Deut. xxvii. 19. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN14"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN14">A</a>: In a work entitled, "Instruction in + the Mosaic Religion" by Professor Jholson, of the Jewish seminary at + Frankfort-on-the-Main, translated into English + by Rabbi Leeser, we find the following.—Sec. 165. + + </p> + <p> + "Question. Does holy writ any where make a difference between the Israelite + and the other who is no Israelite, in those laws and prohibitions which forbid + us the <em>committal of any thing against our fellow men?</em>" + + </p> + <p> + "Answer. No where we do find a trace of such a difference. See Lev. xix. + 33-36." + + </p> + <p> + "God says thou shalt not murder, <em>steal</em>, cheat, &c. In every + place the action <em>itself</em> is prohibited as being an abomination to + God <em>without respect to the <b>persons</b> + against whom it is committed</em>." + </p> + <p> + X. THE MOSAIC SYSTEM ENJOINED THE GREATEST AFFECTION AND + KINDNESS TOWARDS SERVANTS, FOREIGN AS WELL AS JEWISH. + + </p> + <p> + "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born + among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." Lev. xix. 34. + "For the Lord your God * * REGARDETH NOT PERSONS. He doth + execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and LOVETH THE + STRANGER, in giving him food and raiment, LOVE YE THEREFORE THE + STRANGER." Deut. x. 17, 19. "Thou shalt neither vex a STRANGER + nor oppress him." Ex. xxii. 21. "Thou shalt not oppress a + STRANGER, for ye know the heart of a stranger." Ex. xxiii. 9. + "If thy brother be waxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he + be a STRANGER or a sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no + usury of him or increase, but fear thy God." Lev. xxv. 35, 36. + Could this same stranger be taken by one that feared his God, and + held as a slave, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights? + + </p> + <p> + XI. SERVANTS WERE PLACED UPON A LEVEL WITH THEIR MASTERS IN + ALL CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. Num. xv. 15, 16, 29; ix. 14; + Deut. i. 16, 17; Lev. xxiv. 22. To these may be added that numerous + class of passages which represents God as regarding <em>alike</em> the + natural rights of <em>all</em> men, and making for all an + <em>equal</em> provision. Such + + as, 2 Chron. xix. 7; Prov. xxiv. 23, xxviii. 21; Job. xxxiv. 19, + 2 Sam. xiv. 14; Acts x. 35; Eph. vi. 9. + + </p> + <p> + Finally—With such watchful jealousy did the Mosaic Institutes + guard the <em>rights</em> of servants, as to make the mere fact of a + servant's escape from his master presumptive evidence that his master had + <em>oppressed</em> him; and on that presumption, annulled his master's + authority over him, gave him license to go wherever he pleased, and commanded + all to protect him. Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. As this regulation will be examined + under a subsequent head, where its full discussion more appropriately + belongs, we notice it here merely to point out its bearings on + the topic under consideration. + + </p> + <p> + THESE ARE REGULATIONS OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED + BY SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_vol"></a> + II. WERE PERSONS MADE SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS? + + </h3> + <p> + We argue that they became servants of <em>their own accord,</em> because, + + </p> + <p> + I. TO BECOME A SERVANT WAS TO BECOME A PROSELYTE. Whoever + of the strangers became a servant, he was required to abjure idolatry, + to enter into covenant with God<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN15"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN15"></a>, be + circumcised in token of it, be + bound to keep the Sabbath, the Passover, the Pentecost, and the Feast + + of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in the moral and ceremonial + law. Were the servants <em>forced</em> through all these processes? Was + the renunciation of idolatry <i>compulsory</i>? Were they + <em>dragged</em> into covenant with God? Were they seized and + circumcised by <em>main strength</em>? Were they <em>compelled</em> + mechanically to chew and swallow + the flesh of the Paschal lamb, while they abhorred the institution, + spurned the laws that enjoined it, detested its author and its executors, + and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemorated, + bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? + Were they <em>driven</em> from all parts of the land three times in the + year to the annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they + nauseated? Were they goaded through a round of ceremonies, to + them senseless and disgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics + of a creed rank with loathed abominations? We repeat it, to become + a <i>servant</i>, was to become a + <i>proselyte</i>. Did God authorize his + people to make proselytes at the point of the bayonet? by the terror of + pains and penalties? by converting men into + <i>merchandise?</i> Were <em>proselyte + and chattel</em> synonymes in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man + be sunk to a <i>thing</i> before taken into covenant with + God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption? the sure and sacred + passport to the communion of the saints? + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN15"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN15">A</a>: Maimonides, a + contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the + head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: + + </p> + <p> + "Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be + purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the + covenant. + + </p> + <p> + "But he that is in the <i>house</i> is entered on the + eighth day, and he that is bought with money, on the day on which his master + receives him, unless the slave be <em>unwilling</em>. For if the master + receive a grown slave, and he be <em>unwilling</em>, + his master is to bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, + and by love and kindness, for one year. After which, should he + <em>refuse</em> so long, it is forbidden to keep him longer than a year. + And the master must send him back to the strangers from whence he came. For + the God of Jacob will not accept any other than the worship of a + <em>willing</em> heart."—Maimon, Hilcoth Miloth, + Chap. 1, Sec. 8. + + </p> + <p> + The ancient Jewish Doctors assert that the servant from the Strangers who at + the close of his probationary year, refused to adopt the Jewish religion and + was on that account sent back to his own people, received a + <em>full compensation</em> for his services, besides the payment of his + expenses. But that <em>postponement</em> of the circumcision + of the foreign servant for a year (<em>or even at all</em> after he had + entered the family of an Israelite) of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems + to have been <em>a mere usage</em>. We find nothing of it in the + regulations of the Mosaic system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly + <i>initiatory</i>. Whether it was a rite merely + <i>national</i> or <i>spiritual</i>, + or <em>both</em>, comes not within the scope of this inquiry. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_vol_run"></a> + II. THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVE SERVANTS TO THEIR MASTERS + WAS PROHIBITED. "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant + which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with + thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of + thy gates where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him." Deut. + xxiii. 15, 16. + + </p> + <p> + As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize + the <i>right</i> of the master to hold him; his + <em>fleeing</em> shows his <em>choice</em>, proclaims + his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall not force him + back and thus recognize the <i>right</i> of the master to + hold him in such a condition as induces him to flee to others for protection." + It may be said that this command referred only to the servants of + <i>heathen</i> + masters in the surrounding nations. We answer: the terms of the + command are unlimited. But the objection, if valid, would merely + shift the pressure of the difficulty to another point. Did God require + them to protect the <i>free choice</i> of a + <em>single</em> servant from the heathen, + and yet <em>authorize</em> the same persons, to crush the free choice of + <em>thousands</em> of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A + <em>foreign</em> servant escapes to the Israelites; God says, "He shall + dwell with thee, in that place which <em>he shall choose</em>, in one of + thy gates where it + <em>liketh him</em> best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead of + coming into Israel of his own accord, had been <em>dragged</em> in by + some kidnapper, who bought him of his master, and forced him into a condition + against his will; would He who forbade such treatment of the stranger, + who <em>voluntarily</em> came into the land, sanction the same treatment + of the <em>same person</em>, provided in addition to this last outrage, + the previous one had been committed of forcing him into the nation + against his will? To commit violence on the free choice of a foreign + servant is forsooth a horrible enormity, provided you <em>begin</em> the + violence <em>after</em> he has come among you. But if you commit the + first act on the <em>other side of the line</em>; if you begin the + outrage by buying him from a third person against his will, and then tear + him from home, drag him across the line into the land of Israel, and hold him + as a slave—ah! that alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence + now with impunity! Would <em>greater</em> favor have been shown to this + new comer than to the old residents—those who had been servants in + Jewish families perhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commanded + to exercise towards <em>him</em>, uncircumcised and out of the covenant, + a justice and kindness denied to the multitudes who <em>were</em> + circumcised, and <em>within</em> the covenant? But, the objector finds + small gain to his argument on the supposition that the covenant respected + merely the fugitives from the surrounding nations, while it left the + servants of the Israelites in a condition against their wills. In that + case, the surrounding nations would adopt retaliatory measures, and + become so many asylums for Jewish fugitives. As these nations + were not only on every side of them, but in their midst, such a + proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men whose condition + was a constant counteraction of will. Besides the same command + which protected the servant from the power of his foreign + <i>master</i>, protected him equally from the power of an + <i>Israelite</i>. It was not, merely "Thou shalt not + deliver him unto his <i>master</i>," but "he shall + dwell with thee, in that place which <em>he shall choose</em> in one of + thy gates where it liketh <em>him</em> best." Every Israelite was + forbidden to put him in any condition <em>against his will</em>. What was + this but a proclamation, that all who <em>chose</em> to live in the land + and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to dispose of their + services at such a rate, to such persons, and in such places as they pleased? + Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of + <em>foreign</em> servants only, there was no law requiring the return + of servants who had escaped from the <em>Israelites</em>. + <i>Property</i> lost, and + <i>cattle</i> escaped, they were required + to return, but not escaped <i>servants</i>. These verses + contain, 1st, a command, + + "Thou shalt not deliver," &c., 2d. a declaration of the fugitive's + right of <i>free choice</i>, and of God's will that he + should exercise it at his own discretion; and 3d, a command guarding this + right, namely, "Thou shalt not oppress him," as though God had said, "If you + restrain him from exercising his <em>own choice</em>, as to the place and + condition of his residence, it is <em>oppression</em>, and shall not be + tolerated."<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN16"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN16"></a></p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN16"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN16">A</a>: Perhaps it may be objected that this + view of Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, makes nonsense + of Ex. xxi. 27, which provides that if a man strikes out his servant's tooth + he shall let him go free. Small favor indeed if the servant might set himself + free whenever he pleased! Answer—The former passage might remove the + servant from the master's <em>authority</em>, without annulling the + master's legal claims upon the servant, if he had paid him in advance and + had not received from him an equivalent, and this equally, whether his master + were a Jew or a Gentile. The latter passage, "He shall let him go free + <em>for his tooth's sake,"</em> not only freed + the servant from the master's authority, but also from any pecuniary claim + which the master might have on account of having paid his wages in advance; + and this <em>as a compensation</em>, for the loss of a tooth. + </p> + <p> + III. THE SERVANTS HAD PECULIAR OPPORTUNITIES AND FACILITIES FOR + ESCAPE. Three times every year, all the males over twelve years, + were required to attend the national feasts. They were thus absent + from their homes not less than three weeks at each time, making nine + weeks annually. As these caravans moved over the country, were + there military scouts lining the way, to intercept deserters?—a + corporal's guard at each pass of the mountains, sentinels pacing the hilltops, + and light-horse scouring the defiles? The Israelites must have + had some safe contrivance for taking their "<i>slaves</i>" + three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a body of slaves is moved + any distance in our <em>republic</em>, they are handcuffed and chained + together, to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers' brains + out. Was this the <em>Mosaic</em> plan, or an improvement introduced by + Samuel, or was it left for the wisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, + claims a paternity not less venerable and biblical! Perhaps they were + lashed upon camels, and transported in bundles, or caged up and trundled + on wheels to and fro, and while at the Holy City, "lodged in jail + for safe keeping," the Sanhedrim appointing special religious services + for their benefit, and their "drivers" officiating at "ORAL instruction." + Meanwhile, what became of the sturdy <em>handmaids</em> left at home? What + hindered them from stalking off in a body? Perhaps the Israelitish + matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while the young + ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, picking up stragglers + by day, and patrolled the streets, keeping a sharp look-out at night! + + </p> + <p> + IV. WILFUL NEGLECT OF CEREMONIAL RITES DISSOLVED THE RELATION. + + </p> + <p> + Suppose the servants from the heathen had, upon entering Jewish + families, refused circumcision; if <i>slaves</i>, how + simple the process of emancipation! Their <em>refusal</em> did the job. + Or, suppose they had refused to attend the annual feasts, or had eaten + leavened bread during the Passover, or compounded the ingredients of the + anointing oil, or had touched a dead body, a bone, or a grave, or in any way + had contracted ceremonial uncleanness, and refused to be cleansed with the + "water of separation," they would have been "cut off from the people;" + <i>excommunicated</i>. Ex. xii. 19; xxx. 33; Num. xix. 16. + + </p> + <p> + V. SERVANTS OF THE PATRIARCHS NECESSARILY VOLUNTARY. + + </p> + <p> + Abraham's servants are an illustration. At one time he had three + hundred and eighteen <em>young men</em> "born in his house," and many more + <em>not</em> born in his house. His servants of all ages were probably + MANY THOUSANDS. How did Abraham and Sarah contrive to hold fast so + many thousand servants against their wills? The most natural supposition + is that the Patriarch and his wife "took turns" in surrounding + them! The neighboring tribes, instead of constituting a picket + guard to hem in his servants, would have been far more likely to + sweep them and him into captivity, as they did Lot and his household. + Besides, there was neither "constitution" nor "compact," to send + back Abraham's fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce upon them, + nor gentlemen-kidnappers, suing for his patronage, volunteering to + howl on their track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging + their honour to hunt down and deliver up, provided they had a description + of the "flesh-marks," and were suitably stimulated by pieces of + silver.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN17"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN17"></a> Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient in all the + + auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand-cuffs, foot-chains, + yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these patriarchal + indispensables is the more afflicting, since he faithfully trained "his + household to do justice and judgment," though so deplorably destitute + of the needful aids. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN17"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN17">A</a>: The following is a standing newspaper + advertisement of one of these professional + man-catchers, a member of the New York bar, who coolly plies his + trade in the commercial emporium, sustained by the complacent greetings and + courtesies of "HONORABLE MEN!" + + </p> + <p> + "IMPORTANT TO THE SOUTH.—F.H. Pettis, native of Orange County, Va., + being located in the city of New York, in the practice of law, announces to + his friends and the public in general, that he has been engaged as Counsel + and Adviser in General for a party whose business it is in the northern + cities to arrest and secure runaway slaves. He has been thus engaged for + several years, and as the act of Congress alone governs now in this city, in + business of this sort, which renders it easy for the recovery of such + property, he invites post paid communications to him, inclosing a fee of + $20 in each case, and a power of Attorney minutely descriptive of the party + absconded, and if in the northern region, he, or she will soon be had. + + </p> + <p> + "Mr. Pettis will attend promptly to all law business confided to him. + + </p> + <p> + "N.B. New York City is estimated to contain 5,000 Runaway Slaves. + + </p> + <p> + "PETTIS." + + </p> + <p> + Probably Job had even more servants than Abraham. See Job. i. 3, + 14-19, and xlii. 12. That his thousands of servants staid with him + entirely of their own accord, is proved by the <em>fact</em> of their + staying with him. Suppose they had wished to quit his service, and so the + whole army had filed off before him in full retreat, how could the patriarch + have brought them to halt? Doubtless with his wife, seven sons, and + three daughters for allies, he would have soon out-flanked the fugitive + host and dragged each of them back to his wonted chain and staple. + + </p> + <p> + But the impossibility of Job's servants being held against their wills, + is not the only proof of their voluntary condition. We have his own + explicit testimony that he had not "withheld from the poor their + <em>desire</em>." Job. xxxi. 16. Of course he could hardly have made + them live with him, and forced them to work for him against + <em>their desire</em>. + + </p> + <p> + When Isaac sojourned in the country of the Philistines he "had + <em>great store</em> of servants." And we have his testimony that the + Philistines hated him, added to that of inspiration that they "envied" him. + Of course they would hardly volunteer to organize patroles and committees + of vigilance to keep his servants from running away, and to + drive back all who were found beyond the limits of his plantation without + a "pass!" If the thousands of Isaac's servants were held against + their wills, who held them? + + </p> + <p> + The servants of the Jews, during the building of the wall of Jerusalem, + under Nehemiah, may be included under this head. That they + remained with their masters of their own accord, we argue from the fact, + that the circumstances of the Jews made it impossible for them to + <em>compel</em> their residence and service. They were few in number, + without resources, defensive fortifications, or munitions of war, and + surrounded withal by a host of foes, scoffing at their feebleness and inviting + desertion from their ranks. Yet so far from the Jews attempting in any way to + restrain their + + servants, or resorting to precautions to prevent escape, they put arms into + their hands, and enrolled them as a night-guard, for the defence of the + city. By cheerfully engaging in this service and in labor by day, when + with entire ease they might all have left their masters, marched over to + the enemy, and been received with shoutings, the servants testified that + their condition was one of <em>their own choice</em>, and that they + regarded their own interests as inseparably identified with those of their + masters. Neh. iv. 23. + + </p> + <p> + VI. NO INSTANCES OF ISRAELITISH MASTERS SELLING SERVANTS. + Neither Abraham nor Isaac seem ever to have sold one, though they + had "great store of servants." Jacob was himself a servant in the family + of Laban twenty-one years. He had afterward a large number of + servants. Joseph invited him to come into Egypt, and to bring all that + he had with him—"thou and thy children, and thy children's children, + and thy flocks and thy herds, and ALL THAT THOU HAST." Gen. xlv. 10. + Jacob took his flocks and herds but <em>no servants</em>. Yet we are + told that Jacob "took his journey with <em>all that he had</em>." + Gen. xlvi. 1. And after + his arrival in Egypt, Joseph said to Pharaoh "my father, and my brethren, + and their flocks, and their herds and <em>all that they have</em>, + are come." Gen. xlvii. 1. The servants doubtless, served under their + <em>own contracts</em>, and when Jacob went into Egypt, they + <em>chose</em> to stay in their own country. + + </p> + <p> + The government might sell <em>thieves</em>, if they had no property, until + their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex. xxii. + 3. But <i>masters</i> seem to have had no power to sell + their <i>servants</i>. To give the master a + <em>right</em> to sell his servant, would annihilate the servant's + right of choice in his own disposal; but says the objector, "to give the + master a right to <em>buy</em> a servant, equally annihilates the + servant's <i>right of choice</i>." Answer. It is one + thing to have a right to buy a man, and a quite another thing to have a right + to buy him of <em>another</em> man.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN18"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN18"></a></p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN18"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN18">A</a>: There is + no evidence that masters had the power to dispose of even the + <i>services</i> of their servants, as men hire out their + laborers whom they employ by the year; but whether they had or not, affects + not the argument. + </p> + <p> + Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females + were bought of their <em>fathers</em>. But their purchase as + <em>servants</em> was their betrothal as WIVES. Ex. xxi. 7, 8. "If a man + sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the + men-servants do. If she please not her master WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO + HIMSELF, he shall let her be redeemed."<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN19"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN19"></a></p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN19"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN19">B</a>: The comment + of Maimonides on this passage is as follows:—"A Hebrew + handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under obligations, to + espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit to be + betrothed."—<i>Maimonides—Hilcoth—Obedim</i>, + Ch. IV. Sec. XI. Jarchi, on the same passage, says, + "He is bound to espouse her to be his wife, for the <i>money + of her purchase</i> is the money of her + <i>espousal</i>." + </p> + <p> + VII. VOLUNTARY SERVANTS FROM THE STRANGERS. + + </p> + <p> + We infer that <em>all</em> the servants from the Strangers were voluntary + in becoming such, since we have direct testimony that some of them were + so. "Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, + whether he be of thy brethren, OR OF THY STRANGERS that are in thy land + within thy gates." Deut. xxiv. 14. We learn from this that some of the + servants, which the Israelites obtained from the strangers were procured + by presenting the inducement of <em>wages</em> to their + <i>free choice</i>, thus recognizing + their right to sell their services to others, or not, at their own + pleasure. Did the Israelites, when they went among the heathen to + procure servants, take money in one hand and ropes in the other? Did + they <em>ask</em> one man to engage in their service, and + <em>drag</em> along with them the next that they met, in spite of his + struggles. Did they knock for admission + at one door and break down the next? Did they go through one + village with friendly salutations and respectful demeanor, and with the + air of those soliciting favors, offer wages to the inhabitants as an + inducement to engage in their service—while they sent on their agents to + prowl through the next, with a kidnapping posse at their heels, to tear + from their homes as many as they could get within their clutches? + + </p> + <p> + VIII. HEBREW SERVANTS VOLUNTARY. + + </p> + <p> + We infer that the Hebrew + servant was voluntary in COMMENCING his service, because he was preeminently + so IN CONTINUING it. If, at the year of release, it was the + servant's <em>choice</em> to remain with his master, the law required + his ear to be bored by the judges of the land, thus making it impossible for + him to be held against his will. Yea more, his master was + <em>compelled</em> to keep him, however much he might wish to get rid of + him. + + </p> + <p> + IX. THE MANNER OF PROCURING SERVANTS, AN APPEAL TO CHOICE. + + </p> + <p> + The Israelites were commanded to offer them a suitable inducement, + and then leave them to decide. They might neither seize them by + <em>force</em>, nor frighten them by <em>threats</em>, nor wheedle + them by false pretences, nor <em>borrow</em> them, nor <em>beg</em> + them; but they were commanded to BUY them<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN20"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN20"></a>—that is, they were to recognize the + <em>right</em> of the individuals to <em>dispose</em> of their own + services, and their right to <em>refuse all offers</em>, + + and thus oblige those who made them, <em>to do their own work</em>. + Suppose all, with one accord, had <em>refused</em> to become servants, + what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency? NONE. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN20"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN20">A</a>: The case + of thieves, whose services were sold until they had earned enough to make + restitution to the person wronged, and to pay the legal penalty, + <em>stands by itself</em>, and has nothing to do with the condition of + servants. + </p> + <p> + X. INCIDENTAL CORROBORATIVES. Various incidental expressions + corroborate the idea that servants became such by their own contract. + Job. xli. 4, is an illustration, "Will he (Leviathan) make a COVENANT + with thee? wilt thou take him for a SERVANT forever?" Isa. xiv. 1, 2 + is also an illustration. "The strangers shall be joined with them (the + Israelites) and <em>they shall</em> CLEAVE to the house of Jacob, and + the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord, for servants + and handmaids." + + </p> + <p> + The transaction which made the Egyptians the SERVANTS OF + PHARAOH was voluntary throughout. See Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of + their own accord they came to Joseph and said, "There is not aught + left but our <em>bodies</em> and our lands; <em>buy</em> us;" then in + the 25th verse, "We will be Pharaoh's servants." To these it may be added, + that the sacrifices and offerings which ALL were required to present, were to + be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2. 3. + + </p> + <p> + The pertinence and point of our Lord's declaration in Luke xvi. 13, + is destroyed on the supposition that servants did not become such by + <em>their own choice</em>. "No servant can serve two masters: for either + he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one + and despise the other." Let it be kept in mind, that our Lord was a + <em>Jew</em>. The lost sheep of the house of Israel were his flock. + Wherever he went, they were around him: whenever he spake, they were his + auditors. His public preaching and his private teaching and conversation, + were full of references to their own institutions, laws and usages, + and of illustrations drawn from them. In the verse quoted, he illustrates + the impossibility of their making choice of God as their portion, + and becoming his servants, while they chose the world, and were + <em>its</em> servants. To make this clear, he refers to one of their own + institutions, that of <em>domestic service</em>, with which, in all its + relations, incidents and usages, they were perfectly familiar. He reminds them + of the well-known impossibility of any person being the servant of two + masters, and declares the sole ground of that impossibility to be, the fact + that the servant <em>chooses</em> the service of the one, and + <em>spurns</em> that of the other. "He shall <em>hold to</em> the one + and <em>despise</em> (reject) the other." As + though our Lord had said, "No one can become the servant of another, + when his will revolts from his service, and when the conditions + of it tend to make him hate the man." Since the fact that the servant + <em>spurns</em> one of two masters, makes it impossible for him to serve + <em>that one</em>, + + if he spurned <em>both</em> it would make it impossible for him to serve + <em>either</em>. So, also, if the fact that an individual did not + "hold to" or choose the service of another, proves that he could not become + his servant, then the question, whether or not he should become the servant + of another was suspended on <em>his own will</em>. Further, the + phraseology of the passage shows that the <em>choice</em> of the servant + decided the question. "He will HOLD TO the one,"—hence there is no + difficulty in the way of his serving <em>him</em>; but "no servant can + serve" a master whom he does not "<em>hold to</em>," or + <em>cleave</em> to, whose service he does not <em>choose</em>. This + is the sole ground of the impossibility asserted by our Lord. + + </p> + <p> + The last clause of the verse furnishes an application of the principle + asserted in the former part, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." + Now in what does the impossibility of serving both God and the + world consist? Solely in the fact that the will which chooses the one + refuses the other, and the affections which "hold to" the one, reject + the other. Thus the question, Which of the two is to be served, is + suspended alone upon the <em>choice</em> of the individual. + + </p> + <p> + XI. RICH STRANGERS DID NOT BECOME SERVANTS. Indeed, so far were + they from becoming servants themselves, that they bought and held + Jewish servants. Lev. xxv. 47. Since <em>rich</em> strangers did not + become servants to the Israelites, we infer that those who <em>did</em>, + became such not because they were <i>strangers</i>, but + because they were <em>poor</em>,—not because, on account of their + being heathen, they were <em>compelled by force</em> + to become servants, but because, on account of their <em>poverty</em>, + they <em>chose</em> to become servants to better their condition. + + </p> + <p> + XII. INSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SERVANTS. Mention is often made + of persons becoming servants who were manifestly VOLUNTARY. + As the Prophet Elisha. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah + was his <i>master</i>. 2 Kings ii. 5. The word translated + master, is the same that is so rendered in almost every instance where + masters are spoken of under the Mosaic and patriarchal systems. Moses was the + servant of Jethro. Ex. iii. 1; iv. 10. Joshua was the servant of + Moses. Ex. xxxiii. 11. Num. xi. 28. Jacob was the servant of Laban. + Gen. xxix. 18-27. See also the case of the Gibeonites who + <em>voluntarily</em> became servants to the Israelites and afterwards + performed service for the "house of God" throughout the subsequent Jewish + history, were incorporate with the Israelites, registered in the genealogies, + and manifestly of their own accord remained with them, and + "<i>clave</i>" to them. Neh. x. 28, 29; xi. 3; + Ez. vii. 7. + + </p> + <p> + Finally, in all the regulations respecting servants and their service, + no form of expression is employed from which it could be inferred, that + + servants were made such, and held in that condition by force. Add to + this the entire absence of all the machinery, appurtenances and incidents + of <em>compulsion</em>. + + </p> + <p> + Voluntary service on the part of servants would have been in keeping with + regulations which abounded in the Mosaic system and sustained + by a multitude of analogies. Compulsory service on the other + hand, could have harmonized with nothing, and would have been the + solitary disturbing force, marring its design, counteracting its tendencies, + and confusing and falsifying its types. The directions given to + regulate the performance of service for the <em>public</em>, lay great + stress on the <em>willingness</em> of those employed to perform it. For + the spirit and usages that obtained under the Mosaic system in this respect, + see 1 Chron. xxviii. 21; Ex. xxxv. 5, 21, 22, 29; 1 Chron. xxix. 5, 6, 9, 14, + 17; Ex. xxv. 2; Judges v. 2; Lev. xxii. 29; 2 Chron. xxxv. 8; Ezra i. 6; + Ex. xxxv; Neh. xi. 2.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN21"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN21"></a></p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN21"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN21">A</a>: We should naturally infer + that the directions which regulated the rendering of service to individuals, + would proceed upon the same principle in this respect with those which + regulated the rendering of service to the <em>public</em>. Otherwise + the Mosaic system, instead of constituting in its different parts a harmonious + <em>whole</em>, would be divided against itself; its principles + counteracting and nullifying each other. + </p> + <p> + Again, the voluntariness of servants is a natural inference from + the fact that the Hebrew word + <i>ebēdh,</i> uniformly rendered + <i>servant</i>, is applied to a great variety of classes + and descriptions of persons under the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, + <em>all of whom</em> were voluntary and most of them eminently so. For + instance, it is applied to persons rendering acts of <em>worship</em> + about seventy times, whereas it is applied to + <i>servants</i> not more than half that number of times. + + </p> + <p> + To this we may add, that the illustrations drawn from the condition + and service of <i>servants</i> and the ideas which the + term servant is employed to convey when applied figuratively to moral + subjects would, in most + instances, lose all their force, and often become absurdities if the will + of the servant <em>resisted</em> his service, and he performed it only + by <em>compulsion</em>. Many passages will at once occur to those who are + familiar with the Bible. We give a single example. "<em>To whom YE YIELD + YOURSELVES servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey.</em>" + Rom. vi. 16. It would hardly be possible to assert the voluntariness of + servants more strongly in a direct proposition than it is here asserted by + implication. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_wages"></a> + III. WERE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY + + </h3> + <p> + As the servants became and continued such of <em>their own accord</em>, it + would be no small marvel if they <em>chose</em> to work without pay. Their + becoming servants, pre-supposes <em>compensation</em> as a motive. That + they <em>were paid</em> for their labor, we argue. + + </p> + <p> + 1. BECAUSE GOD REBUKED THE USING OF SERVICE WITHOUT + WAGES. "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, + and his chambers by wrong; THAT USETH HIS NEIGHBOR'S SERVICE + WITHOUT WAGES, AND GIVETH HIM NOT FOR HIS WORK." Jer. xxii. + 13. The Hebrew word <i>reā</i>, + translated <i>neighbor</i>, means any one + with whom we have to do—all descriptions of persons, even those who + prosecute us in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of fighting + us—"As when a man riseth against his NEIGHBOR and slayeth him." + Deut. xxii. 26. "Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what + to do in the end thereof, when thy NEIGHBOR hath put thee to shame." + Prov. xxv. 8. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy NEIGHBOR." + Ex. xx. 16. "If a man come presumptuously upon his + NEIGHBOR to slay him with guile." Ex. xxi. 14, &c. The doctrine + plainly inculcated in this passage is, that every man's labor, or "service," + being his own property, he is entitled to the profit of it, and that + for another to "use" it without paying him the value of it, is + "unrighteousness." The last clause of the verse "and giveth him not for + his work," reaffirms the same principle, that every man is to be + <em>paid</em> for "his work." In the context, the prophet contrasts the + unrighteousness of those who used the labor of others without pay, with the + justice and equity practiced by their patriarchal ancestor toward the poor. + "Did not thy father eat and drink and <em>do judgment and justice</em>, + and then it was well with him. He <em>judged the cause of the poor and + needy</em>; then it was well with him. But thine eyes and thine heart are + not but for thy <em>covetousness</em>, and for to shed innocent blood, + and for <em>oppression</em>, and for violence to do it." Jer. xxii. + 15, 16. 17.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN22"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN22"></a></p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN22"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN22">A</a>: Paul lays down the same principle in + the form of a precept "Masters give unto your servants that which is JUST and + EQUAL." Col. iv. 1. Thus not only asserting the <em>right</em> of the + servant to an equivalent for his labor, and the duty of the master to render + it, but condemning all those relations between master and servant which were + not founded upon justice and equality of rights. The apostle James enforces + the same principle. "Behold, the hire of the laborers, who have reaped down + your fields, which is of you kept back <em>by fraud</em>, crieth." + James v. 4. As though he had said, "wages are the <em>right</em> of + laborers; those who work for you have a just claim on you for + <em>pay</em>; this you refuse to render, and thus <em>defraud</em> + them by keeping from them what <em>belongs</em> to them." See also Mal. + iii 5. + </p> + <p> + II. GOD TESTIFIES THAT IN OUR DUTY TO OUR FELLOW MEN, ALL + THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS HANG UPON THIS COMMAND, "THOU + SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF." Our Savior, in giving this + command, quoted <i>verbatim</i> one of the laws of the + Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the same chapter, Moses + applies this law to the treatment of strangers, "The stranger that dwelleth + with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and THOU SHALT LOVE + HIM AS THYSELF." If it be loving others as ourselves, to make them + work for us without pay; to rob them of food and clothing also, + would be a stronger illustration still of the law of love! + <em>Super</em>-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others + as we would have them do to us, to make them work for <em>our own</em> + good alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human + nature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, "No man ever yet + hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it." + + </p> + <p> + III. SERVANTS WERE OFTEN WEALTHY. As persons became servants FROM POVERTY, + we argue that they were compensated, since they frequently owned property, + and sometimes a large amount. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David + "Two hundred loaves of bread, and a hundred bunches of raisins, and a hundred + of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1. The extent of his + possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though the father of fifteen + sons, he had twenty servants. In Lev. xxv. 47-49, where a servant, reduced to + poverty, sold himself, it is declared that he may be <em>redeemed,</em> + either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been forced to sell himself from + poverty, he must have acquired considerable property <em>after</em> he + became a servant. If it had not been common for servants to acquire property + over which they had the control, the servant of Elisha would hardly have + ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly + $3000<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN23"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN23"></a>) from Naaman, 2 Kings v. 22, 23. As it was procured + by deceit, he wished to conceal the means used in getting it; but if servants + could "own nothing, nor acquire anything," to embark in such an enterprise + would have been consummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession + two talents of silver, would of itself convict him of + theft.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN24"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN24"></a> But + since it + + was common for servants to own property, he might have it, and invest + or use it, without attracting special attention, and that consideration + alone would have been a strong motive to the act. His master, + though he rebuked him for using such means to get the money, not + only does not take it from him, but seems to expect that he would invest + it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure servants with it. + 2 Kings v. 26. We find the servant of Saul having money, and relieving + his master in an emergency. 1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the servant + of Elah, was the <em>owner of a house</em>. That it was somewhat + magnificent, would be a natural inference from its being a resort of the + king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. When Jacob became the servant of Laban, it + was evidently from poverty, yet Laban said to him, Tell me "what + shall thy <em>wages</em> be?" After Jacob had been his servant for ten + years, he proposed to set up for himself, but Laban said "Appoint me thy + wages and I will give it," and he paid him his price. During the + twenty years that Jacob was a servant, he always worked for wages + and at his own price. Gen. xxix. 15, 18; xxx. 28-33. The case + of the Gibeonites, who, after becoming servants, still occupied their + cities, and remained in many respects, a distinct people for + centuries;<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN25"><sup>C</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN25"></a> and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, + the <i>servants</i> of Solomon, who worked out their + "tribute of bond-service" in levies, periodically relieving + + each other, are additional illustrations of independence in the + acquisition and ownership of property. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN23"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN23">A</a>: Though we have not sufficient data to decide + upon the <em>relative</em> value of that sum, <em>then</em> and now, + yet we have enough to warrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had + far more value <em>then</em> than three thousand dollars have + <em>now</em>. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN24"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN24">B</a>: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern + states stealing a large amount of money? They <em>"know how to take care + of themselves"</em> quite too well for that. When they steal, they are + careful to do it on such a small scale, or in the taking of <em>such + things</em> as will make detection difficult. No doubt they steal now + and then, and a gaping marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they + not follow in the footsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars + indeed! if, after so many lessons from <em>proficients</em> in the art, + who drive the business by <em>wholesale</em>, they should not + occasionally copy their betters, fall into the <em>fashion</em>, and try + their hand in a small way, at a practice which is the <em>only permanent + and universal</em> business carried on around them! Ignoble truly! never + to feel the stirrings of high impulse, prompting to imitate the eminent + pattern set before them in the daily vocation of "Honorables" and + "Excellencies," and to emulate the illustrious examples of Doctors of + Divinity, and <em>Right</em> and <em>Very Reverends!</em> Hear + President Jefferson's testimony. In his Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8, + speaking of slaves, he says, "That disposition to theft with which they have + been branded, must be ascribed to their <em>situation</em>, and not to any + special depravity of the moral sense. It is a problem which I give the master + to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of property + were not framed for HIM as well as for his slave—and whether the slave + may not as justifiably take a <em>little</em> from one who has taken ALL + from him, as he may <em>slay</em> one who would slay him?" + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN25"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN25">C</a>: The Nethinims, which name was afterwards + given to the Gibeonites on account of their being <em>set apart</em> + for the service of the tabernacle, had their own houses and cities and + "dwelt every one in his own possession." Neh. xi. 3. 21; + Ezra ii. 70; 1 Chron. ix. 2. + </p> + <p> + Again. The Israelites often <i>hired</i> servants from + the strangers. Deut. xxiv. 17. + + </p> + <p> + Since then it is certain that they gave wages to a part of their Canaanitish + servants, thus recognizing their <em>right</em> to a reward for their + labor, we infer that they did not rob the rest of their earnings. + + </p> + <p> + If God gave them a license to make the strangers work for them + without pay—if this was good and acceptable in His sight, and + <em>right and just in itself</em>, they must have been great fools to + have wasted their money by paying wages when they could have saved it, by + making the strangers do all their work for nothing! Besides, by refusing to + avail themselves of this "Divine license," they despised the blessing and + cast contempt on the giver! But far be it from us to do the Israelites + injustice; perhaps they seized all the Canaanites they could lay their + hands on, and forced them to work without pay, but not being able to + catch enough to do their work, were obliged to offer wages in order to + eke out the supply! + + </p> + <p> + The parable of our Lord, contained in Mat. xviii. 23-34, not only derives + its significance from the fact, that servants can both <em>own</em> + and <em>owe</em> and <em>earn</em> property, over which they had the + control, but would be made a medley of contradictions on any other + supposition.—1. Their lord at a set time proceeded to "take account" + and "reckon" with his servants; the phraseology itself showing that the + relations between the parties, were those of debt and credit. 2. As the + reckoning went on, one of his servants was found to <em>owe</em> him ten + thousand talents. From the fact that the servant <em>owed</em> this to + his master, we naturally infer, that he must have been at some time, and in + some way, the responsible <em>owner</em> of that amount, or of its + substantial equivalent. Not that he had had that amount put into his hands to + invest, or disburse, in his master's name, merely as his + <i>agent</i>, for in that case no claim of + <i>debt</i> for value + received would lie, but, that having sustained the responsibilities of legal + <i>proprietorship</i>, he was under the liabilities + resulting therefrom. 3. Not having on hand wherewith to pay, he says to his + master "have patience with me <em>and I will pay thee all</em>." If the + servant had been his master's <i>property</i>, his time + and earnings belonged to the master as a matter of course, hence the promise + to earn and pay over that amount, was virtually saying to his master, "I + will take money out of your pocket with which to pay my debt to you," thus + adding insult to injury. The promise of the servant to pay the debt on + condition that the time for payment should be postponed, not only proceeds + upon the fact that his + + time was his own, that he was constantly earning property or in circumstances + that enabled him to earn it, and that he was the + <i>proprietor</i> of his earnings, but that his master + had <em>full knowledge</em> of that fact.—In a word, the supposition + that the master was the <i>owner</i> of the servant, + would annihilate all legal claim upon him for value received, and that + the servant was the <i>property</i> of the master, would + absolve him from all obligations of debt, or rather would always + <em>forestall</em> such obligations—for the relations of owner and + creditor in such case, would annihilate each other, as would those of + <i>property</i> and <i>debtor</i>. + The fact that the same servant was the creditor of one of his fellow servants, + who owed him a considerable sum, and that at last he was imprisoned until he + should pay all that was due to his master, are additional corroborations of + the same point. + + </p> + <p> + IV. HEIRSHIP.—Servants frequently inherited their master's property; + especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family. + Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, Gen. xv. 23; Ziba, the servant of + Mephibosheth; Jarha, the servant of Sheshan, who married his daughter, + and thus became his heir, he having no sons, and the + <i>husbandmen</i> who said of their master's son, "this + is the HEIR, let us kill him, and the INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS," are + illustrations; also Prov. xxx. 23, an <i>handmaid</i> + (or <i>maid-servant</i>,) that is <em>heir</em> to her + mistress; also Prov. xvii. 2—"A wise servant shall have rule over a son + that causeth shame, and SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG THE + BRETHREN." This passage gives servants precedence as heirs, even over the + wives and daughters of their masters. Did masters hold by force, and + plunder of earnings, a class of persons, from which, in frequent contingencies, + they selected both heirs for their property, and husbands + for their daughters? + + </p> + <p> + V. ALL WERE REQUIRED TO PRESENT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES. + Deut. xvi. 16, 17; 2 Chron. xv. 9-11; Numb. ix. 13, 14. Beside this, + "every man" from twenty years old and above, was required to pay + a tax of half a shekel at the taking of the census; this is called "an + offering unto the Lord to make an atonement for their souls." Ex. + xxx. 12-16. See also Ex. xxxiv. 20. Servants must have had permanently + the means of <em>acquiring</em> property to meet these expenditures. + + </p> + <p> + VI. SERVANTS WHO WENT OUT AT THE SEVENTH YEAR, WERE "FURNISHED + LIBERALLY." Deut. xv. 10-14. "Thou shalt furnish him liberally + out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press, of + that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, thou shalt give + him."<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN26"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN26"></a> + If it be said that the servants from the Strangers did not receive a like + bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of + <em>Israelitish</em> servants, the free-holders; and for the same + reason, <em>they did not go out in the seventh year,</em> but continued + until the jubilee. If the fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such + a <i>gratuity</i> proves that they were robbed of their + <i>earnings</i>, it proves that the most valued + class of <em>Hebrew</em> servants were robbed of theirs also; a + conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators, however + unscrupulous. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN26"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN26">A</a>: The comment of Maimonides on this passage + is as follows—"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to + say, <em>'Loading, ye shall load him,'</em> likewise + every one of his family with as much as he can take with him—abundant + benefits. And if it be avariciously asked, 'How much must I give him?' I + say unto <em>you, not less than thirty shekels,</em> which is the + valuation of a servant, as declared in Ex. xxi. 32."—Maimonides, + Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec. 3. + </p> + <p> + VII. SERVANTS WERE BOUGHT. In other words, they received compensation + in advance.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN27"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN27"></a> Having shown, + under a previous head, that servants <em>sold themselves</em>, and of + course received the compensation for themselves, except in cases where + parents hired out the time of their children till they became of + age,<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN28"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN28"></a> a mere reference to the fact is all + that is required for the purposes of this argument. As all the strangers + in the land were required to pay an annual tribute to the government, + the Israelites might often "buy" them as family servants, by stipulating + with them to pay their annual tribute. This assumption of their obligations + to the government might cover the whole of the servant's time of + service, or a part of it, at the pleasure of the parties. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN27"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN27">A</a>: But, says the objector, if servants + received their pay in advance, and if the Israelites were forbidden to + surrender the fugitive to his master, it would operate practically as a + bounty offered to all servants who would leave their master's + service encouraging them to make contracts, get their pay in advance and + then run away, thus cheating their masters out of their money as well as their + own services.—We answer, the prohibition, Deut xxiii. 15. 16, "Thou + shalt not deliver unto his master," &c., sets the servant free from his + <em>authority</em> and of course, from all those liabilities of injury, + to which <i>as his servant</i>, he was subjected, but not + from the obligation of legal contracts. If the servant had received pay in + advance, and had not rendered an equivalent for this "value received," he + was not absolved from his obligation to do so, but he was absolved from all + obligations to pay his master in <em>that particular way</em>, that is, + <em>by working for him as his servant</em>. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN28"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN28">B</a>: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at + twelve, and boys at thirteen years. + </p> + <p> + VIII. THE RIGHT OF SERVANTS TO COMPENSATION IS RECOGNISED IN + Ex. xxi. 27. "And if he smite out his man-servant's, or his maid-servant's + tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." This regulation + is manifestly based upon the <em>right</em> of the servant to the + <em>use</em> of + + himself and all this powers, faculties and personal conveniences, and + consequently his just claim for remuneration, upon him, who should + however <em>unintentionally</em>, deprive him of the use even of the + least of them. If the servant had a right to his <em>tooth</em> and the + use <em>of</em> it, upon the same principle, he had a right to the rest + of his body and the use of it. If he had a right to the + <em>fraction</em>, and if it was his to hold, to use, and to + have pay for; he had a right to the <em>sum total</em>, and it was his to + hold, to use, and to have pay for. + + </p> + <p> + IX. WE FIND MASTERS AT ONE TIME HAVING A LARGE NUMBER OF SERVANTS, + AND AFTERWARDS NONE, WITH NO INTIMATION IN ANY CASE THAT + THEY WERE SOLD. The wages of servants would enable them to set up + in business for themselves. Jacob, after being Laban's servant for + twenty-one years, became thus an independent herdsman, and had + many servants. Gen. xxx. 43; xxxii. 16. But all these servants had left + him before he went down into Egypt, having doubtless acquired enough + to commence business for themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11; xlvi. 1-7, + 32. The case of Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, who had twenty + servants, has been already mentioned. + + </p> + <p> + X. GOD'S TESTIMONY TO THE CHARACTER OF ABRAHAM. Gen. xviii. 19. + "For I know him that he will command his children and his household + after him, and they shall keep THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE + AND JUDGMENT." God here testifies that Abraham taught his servants + "the way of the Lord." What was the "way of the Lord" respecting + the payment of wages where service was rendered? "Wo + unto him that useth this neighbor's service WITHOUT WAGES!" Jer. xxii. 13. + "Masters, give unto your servants that which is JUST AND EQUAL." Col. iv. 1. + "Render unto all their DUES." Rom. xiii. 7. "The laborer is WORTHY of HIS + HIRE." Luke x. 7. How did Abraham teach his servants to + "<em>do justice</em>" to others? By doing injustice to <em>them</em>? + Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back + <em>their own</em>? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy + of his hire" by robbing them of <em>theirs</em>? Did he beget in them a + reverence for honesty by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach + them "not to defraud" others "in any matter" by denying <em>them</em> + "what was just and equal?" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism + did not become a very <em>Aristides</em> in justice, then illustrious + examples, patriarchal dignity, and <em>practical</em> lessons, can make + but slow headway against human perverseness! + + </p> + <p> + XI. SPECIFIC PRECEPTS OF THE MOSAIC LAW ENFORCING GENERAL + PRINCIPLES. Out of many, we select the following: (1.) "Thou + shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Deut. xxv. 4. + + Here is a general principle applied to a familiar case. The ox representing + all domestic animals. Isa. xxx. 24. A <em>particular</em> kind of service, + <em>all</em> kinds; and a law requiring an abundant provision for the + wants of an animal ministering to man in a <em>certain</em> way,—a + general principle of treatment covering all times, modes, and + instrumentalities + of service. The object of the law was; not merely to enjoin tenderness + towards brutes, but to inculcate the duty of rewarding those who + serve us; and if such care be enjoined, by God, both for the ample + sustenance and present enjoyment of <em>a brute</em>, what would be a meet + return for the services of <em>man?</em>—MAN with his varied wants, + exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul says expressly, that this principle + lies at the bottom of the statute. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, "For it is written + in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that + treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he + it altogether for OUR sakes? that he that ploweth should plow in HOPE, + and that he that thresheth in hope should be PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE." + In the context, Paul innumerates the four grand divisions of labor + among the Jews in illustration of the principle that the laborer, whatever + may be the service he performs, is entitled to a <em>reward</em>. The + priests, Levites and all engaged in sacred things—the military, those + who tended flocks and herds, and those who cultivated the soil. As + the latter employment engaged the great body of the Israelites, the + Apostle amplifies his illustration under that head by much detail—and + enumerates the five great departments of agricultural labor among + the Jews—vine-dressing, plowing, sowing, reaping and threshing, as + the representatives of universal labor. In his epistle to Timothy. 1 + Tim. v. 18. Paul quotes again this precept of the Mosaic law, and + connects with it the declaration of our Lord. Luke x. 7. "The laborer + is worthy of his hire,"—as both inculcating the <em>same</em> + doctrine, that he who labors, whatever the employment, or whoever the laborer, + is entitled to a reward. The Apostle thus declares the principle of right + respecting the performance of service for others, and the rule of duty + towards those who perform it, to be the same under both dispensations. + (2.) "If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, + then thou shalt relieve him, YEA THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER or a SOJOURNER + that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or + increase, but fear thy God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon + usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." Lev. xxv. 35-37. + Now, we ask, by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this regulation + can be made to harmonize with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT + PAY? Did God declare the poor stranger entitled to RELIEF, and in + <a name="E4r4_47"></a> + + the same breath, authorize them to "use his service without wages;" + force him to work and ROB HIM OF HIS EARNINGS? + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_noown"></a> + IV.—WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY? + + </h3> + <p> + This topic has been unavoidably somewhat anticipated, in the foregoing + discussion, but a variety of additional considerations remain to be + noticed. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_noown_useprop"></a> + I. SERVANTS WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO THE USES NOR LIABLE TO + THE CONTINGENCIES OF PROPERTY. 1 <em>They were never taken in payment + for their masters' debts</em>. Children were sometimes taken (without + legal authority) for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; + Isa. l. 1; Matt. xviii. 25. Creditors took from debtors property of + all kinds, to satisfy their demands. Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; Prov. + xxii. 27, household furniture; Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions of + the soil; Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; Ex. xxii. 26, 27; Deut. xxiv. + 10-13; Matt. v. 40, clothing; but <i>servants</i> were + taken in <em>no instance</em>. + 2. <em>Servants were never given as pledges</em>. + <i>Property</i> of all sorts was pledged for value + received; household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets, personal + ornaments, &c., but no servants. 3. <em>Servants were not put into the + hands of others, or consigned to their keeping</em>. The precept giving + directions how to proceed in a case where property that has life is + delivered to another "to keep," and "it die or be hurt or driven away," + enumerates oxen, asses, sheep or "any <em>beast</em>," but not + "<i>servants</i>." Ex. xxii. 10. 4. <em>All lost property + was to be restored</em>. Oxen, asses, sheep, raiment, and "all lost + things," are specified—servants <em>not</em>. Deut. xxii 1-3. + Besides, the Israelites were forbidden to return the runaway servant. + Deut. xxiii, 15. 5. <em>Servants were not sold</em>. When by flagrant + misconduct, unfaithfulness or from whatever cause, they had justly + forfeited their privilege of membership in an Israelitish family, they + were not sold, but <em>expelled</em> from the household. Luke xvi. 2-4; + 2 Kings v. 20, 27; Gen. xxi. 14. 6 <em>The Israelites never received + servants as tribute</em>. At different times all the nations round about + them were their tributaries and paid them annually large amounts. They + received property of all kinds in payment of tribute. Gold, silver, brass, + iron, precious stone, and vessels, armor, spices, raiment, harness, horses, + mules, sheep, goats, &c., are in various places enumerated, but + <i>servants</i>, never. 7. <em>The Israelites never + gave away their servants as presents</em>. They made costly presents, of + great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds + + of domestic animals, beds, merchandize, family utensils, precious metals, + grain, honey, butter, cheese, fruits, oil, wine, raiment, armor, &c., are + among their recorded <em>gifts</em>. Giving presents to superiors and + persons of rank, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; xvi. 20; 2 Chron. + xvii. 5. Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy + of Egypt, Gen. xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. + xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath + Pilezer, 2 Kings vi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x. 13; + Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, + 19. Abigail the wife of Nabal to David, 1 Sam. xxv. 18. David to the + elders of Judah, 1 Sam. xxx. 26. Jehoshaphat to his sons, 2. Chron. + xxi. 3. The Israelites to David, 1. Chron. xii. 39, 40. Shobi Machir + and Barzillai to David, 2 Sam. xvii. 28, 29. But no servants were given + as presents, though it was a prevailing fashion in the surrounding nations. + Gen. xii. 16, xx. 14. In the last passage we are told that Abimelech + king of the Philistines "took sheep and oxen and men servants + and women servants and gave them unto Abraham." Not long after + this Abraham made Abimelech a present, the same kind with that which + he had received from him except that he gave him <em>no servants</em>. + "And Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them unto Abimelech." Gen. + xxi. 27. It may be objected that Laban "GAVE" handmaids to his + daughters, Jacob's wives. Without enlarging on the nature of the polygamy + then prevalent, suffice it to say that the handmaids of wives were + regarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. That + Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, + Gen. xlix. 4, and 1 Chron. v. 1; also by the equality of their children + with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise—had Laban + given them as <i>articles of property</i>, then, indeed, + the example of this "good old slaveholder and patriarch," Saint Laban, would + have been a forecloser to all argument. Ah! we remember his jealousy for + <em>religion</em>—his holy indignation when he found that his + "GODS" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and plunged over the desert in + hot pursuit seven days by forced marches; how he ransacked a whole + caravan, sifting the contents of every tent, little heeding such small matters + as domestic privacy, or female seclusion, for lo! the zeal of his + "IMAGES" had eaten him up! No wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, + drifting dismantled before the free gusts, should scud under + the lee of such a pious worthy to haul up and refit; invoking his protection, + and the benediction, of his "GODS!" <a name="E4r4_noown_distprop"></a>Again, + it may be objected + that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If that + proves <i>servants</i> property, it proves + <em>wives</em> property. "Thou shall not + + covet thy neighbor's house, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's WIFE, + nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor + any thing that is thy neighbor's." Ex. xx. 17. In inventories of + mere property, if servants are included, it is in such a way as to show + that they are not regarded as property. Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when the + design is to show, not merely the wealth, but the <em>greatness</em> and + <em>power</em> of any one, servants are spoken of, as well as property. + In a word, if <em>riches</em> alone are spoken of, no mention is made of + servants; if <em>greatness</em>, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2, + 5. "And Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold." Yet we are + told, in the verse preceding, that he came up out of Egypt "with + <em>all</em> that he had." "And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and + tents." In the seventh verse servants are mentioned, "And there was a strife + between the HERDMEN of Abraham's cattle and the HERDMEN of Lot's cattle." It + is said of Isaac. "And the man waxed <em>great</em>, and went forward, + and grew until he became <em>very great</em>. For he had possession of + flocks, and possession of herds, and <em>great store of servants</em>." + In immediate connection with this we find Abimelech the king of the + Philistines saying to him. "Thou art much <em>mightier</em> than we." + Shortly after this avowal, Isaac is waited upon by a deputation consisting of + Abimelech, Phicol the chief captain of his army, and Ahuzzath, who says to + him "Let there be now an oath betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant + with thee, that thou wilt <em>do us no hurt</em>." Gen. xxvi. 13, 14, 16, + 26, 28, 29.—A plain concession of the <em>power</em> which Isaac + had both for aggression and defence in his "great store of + <i>servants</i>;" that is, of willing + and affectionate + adherents to him as a just and benevolent prince. When Hamor and Shechem + speak to the Hivites of the <em>riches</em> of Abraham + and his sons, they say, "Shall not their <em>cattle</em> and their + <em>substance</em> and <em>every beast of theirs</em> be ours?" + Gen. xxxiv. 23. See also Josh. xxii. 8; + Gen. xxxiv. 23; Job. xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; Job. + i. 3-5; Deut. viii. 12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35; xxvi. 13; xxx. 43. Jacob's + wives say to him, "All the <em>riches</em> which God has taken from our + father that is ours and our children's." Then follows an inventory of + property—"All his cattle," "all his goods," "the cattle of his getting." + His numerous servants are not included with his property. Comp. + Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16-18. When Jacob sent messengers + to Esau, wishing to impress him with an idea of his state + and sway, he bade them tell him not only of his RICHES, but of his + GREATNESS; that he had "oxen, and asses, and flocks, and men-servants, + and maid-servants." Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the present which he sent, + there were no servants; though he manifestly selected the + <em>most valuable</em> kinds of property. Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see also + Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7; xxxiv. 23. As flocks and herds were the staples of + wealth, a large number of servants presupposed large possessions of + cattle, which would require many herdsmen. When Jacob and his + sons went down into Egypt it is repeatedly asserted that they took + <em>all that they had</em>. "Their cattle and their goods which they + had gotten in the land of Canaan," "Their flocks and their herds" are + mentioned, but no <i>servants</i>. And as we have besides + a full catalogue of the <em>household</em>, we know that he took with him + no servants. That Jacob <em>had</em> many servants before his migration + into Egypt, we learn from Gen, xxx. 43; xxxii. 5, 16, 19. That he was not + the <i>proprietor</i> of these servants as his property + is a probable inference from the fact that he did not take them with him, + since we are expressly told that he did take all his <em>property</em>. + Gen. xlv. 10; xlvi. 1, 32; xlvii. 1. When servants are spoken of in + connection with <em>mere property</em>, the terms used to + express the latter do not include the former. The Hebrew word + <i>miknē</i>, is an illustration. + It is derived from <i>kānā</i>, to + procure, to buy, and its meaning is, a <i>possession, + wealth, riches</i>. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament, + and is applied always to <em>mere property</em>, generally to domestic + animals, but never to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in + distinction from the <i>miknē</i>. + <a name="E4r4_noown_gen_12_5"></a>"And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot + his brother's son, and + all their SUBSTANCE that they had gathered; and the souls that they + had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of + Canaan." Gen. xii. 5. Many will have it, that these + <i>souls</i> were a part of Abraham's + <em>substance</em> (notwithstanding the pains here taken to separate them + from it)—that they were slaves taken with him in his migration as a + part of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually or in heart, + would torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless + phrase as "<i>the souls that they had gotten?</i>" + Until the African slave trade breathed its haze into the eyes of the + church and smote her with palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery + in, "The souls that they had gotten." In the Targum of + Onkelos<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN29"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN29"></a> + it is rendered, "The souls whom they had brought to obey the law + in Haran." In the Targum of Jonathan, "The souls whom they had + made proselytes in Haran." In the Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls + proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, the prince of Jewish commentators, "The + souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one of the + most learned of the Christian fathers, "The persons whom they had + proselyted." The Persian version, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, + and the Samaritan all render it, "All the wealth which they had gathered, + and the souls which they had made in Haran." Menochius, a commentator + who wrote before our present translation of the Bible, renders + it, "Quas de idolatraria converterant." "Those whom they had + converted from idolatry." Paulus Fagius,<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN30"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN30"></a> "Quas instituerant + in religione." "Those whom they had established in religion." Luke + Francke, a German commentator who lived two centuries ago, "Quas + legi subjicerant."—"Those whom they had brought to obey the law." + The same distinction is made between <em>persons</em> and property, in + the enumeration of Esau's household and the inventory of his effects. "And + Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters, and all the + <em>persons</em> of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and + all his <em>substance</em> which he had got in the land of Canaan, and + went into the country from the face of his brother Jacob. For their + <em>riches</em> were more than that they might dwell together; and the + land could not bear them because of their <em>cattle</em>." + Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN29"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN29">A</a>: The Targums are Chaldee paraphrases of + parts of the Old Testament. The Targum of Onkelos is, for the most part, a + very accurate and faithful translation of the original, and was probably made + at about the commencement of the Christian era. The Targum of Jonathan Ben + Uzziel, bears about the same date. The Targum of Jerusalem was probably + about five hundred years later. The Israelites, during their captivity in + Babylon, lost, as a body, their own language. These translations into the + Chaldee, the language which they acquired in Babylon, were thus called for + by the necessity of the case. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN30"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN30">B</a>: This + eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to England to superintend the translation + of the Bible into English, under the patronage of Henry the Eighth. + He had hardly commenced the work when he died. This was nearly a + century before the date of our present translation. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_noown_socequ"></a> + II. THE CONDITION AND SOCIAL ESTIMATION OF SERVANTS MAKE THE + DOCTRINE THAT THEY WERE COMMODITIES, AN ABSURDITY. As the head + of a Jewish family possessed the same power over his wife, children, + and grandchildren (if they were in his family) as over his servants, if + the latter were articles of property, the former were equally such. If + there were nothing else in the Mosaic Institutes or history establishing + the social equality of the servants with their masters and their master's + wives and children, those precepts which required that they should be + guests at all the public feasts, and equal participants in the family and + social rejoicings, would be quite sufficient to settle the question. Deut. + xii. 12, 18; xvi. 10, 11, 13, 14. Ex. xii. 43, 44. St. Paul's testimony + in Gal. iv. 1, shows the condition of servants: "Now I say unto + you, that the heir, so long as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A + + SERVANT, though he be lord of all." That the interests of Abraham's + servants were identified with those of their master's family, and that + the utmost confidence was reposed in them, is shown in their being + armed. Gen. xiv. 14, 15. When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, + the young Princess Rebecca did not disdain to say to him. + "Drink, MY LORD," as "she hasted and let down her pitcher upon her + hand, and gave him drink." Laban, the brother of Rebecca, "ungirded + his camels, and brought him water to wash his feet, and the men's + feet that were with him!" In the arrangements of Jacob's household + on his journey from Padanaram to Canaan, we find his two maid servants + treated in the same manner and provided with the same accommodations + as Rachel and Leah. Each of them had a separate tent + appropriated to her use. Gen. xxxi. 33. The social equality of servants + with their masters and other members of their master's families, + is an obvious deduction from Ex. xxi. 7, 10, from which we learn that + the sale of a young Jewish female as a servant, was also <em>betrothed as a + wife</em>, either to her master, or to one of his sons. In 1 Sam. ix. is an + account of a festival in the city of Zuph, at which Samuel presided. + None but those bidden, sat down at the feast, and only "about thirty + persons" were invited. Quite a select party!—the elite of the city. + Saul and his servant had just arrived at Zuph, and <em>both</em> of them, + at Samuel's solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. "And Samuel + took Saul and his SERVANT, and brought THEM into the PARLOR (!) and + made THEM sit in the CHIEFEST SEATS among those that were bidden." + A <i>servant</i> invited by the chief judge, ruler, and + prophet in Israel, to dine publicly with a select party, in company with his + master, who was at the same time anointed King of Israel! and this servant + introduced by Samuel into the PARLOR, and assigned, with his master, to the + <em>chiefest seat</em> at the table! This was "<em>one</em> of the + servants" of Kish, Saul's father; not the steward or the chief of + them—not at all a <em>picked</em> man, but "<em>one</em> of + the servants;" <em>any</em> one that could be most easily spared, as + no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking + after asses. David seems to have been for a time in all respects a servant + in Saul's family. He "<em>stood before him</em>." "And Saul sent to + Jesse, saying, let David, I pray thee, <em>stand before me</em>." He was + Saul's personal servant, went on his errands, played on the harp for his + amusement, bore his armor for him, and when he wished to visit his + parents, asked permission of Jonathan, Saul's son. Saul also calls him + "my servant." 1 Sam. xvi. 21-23; xviii. 5; xx. 5, 6; xxii. 8. + Yet David sat with the king at meat, married his daughter, and lived + on terms of the closest intimacy with the heir apparent of the throne. + + Abimelech, who was first elected king of Shechem, and afterwards + reigned over all Israel, <em>was the son of a</em> MAID-SERVANT. His + mother's family seems to have been of much note in the city of Shechem, where + her brothers manifestly held great sway. Judg. ix. 1-6, 18. Jarha, + an Egyptian, the servant of Sheshan, married his daughter. Tobiah, + "the servant" and an Ammonite married the daughter of Shecaniah + one of the chief men among the Jews in Jerusalem and was the intimate + associate of Sanballat the governor of the Samaritans. We find Elah, + the King of Israel, at a festive entertainment, in the house of Arza, his + steward, or head servant, with whom he seems to have been on terms + of familiarity. 1 Kings xvi. 8, 9. See also the intercourse between + Gideon and his servants. Judg. vi. 27, and vii. 10, 11. The Levite + of Mount Ephraim and his servant. Judg. xx. 3, 9, 11, 13, 19, + 21, 22. King Saul and his servant Doeg, one of his herdmen. 1 + Sam. xx. 1, 7; xxii. 9, 18, 22. King David and Ziba, the servant + of Mephibosheth. 2 Sam. xvi. 1-4. Jonathan and his servant. 1 + Sam. xiv. 1-14. Elisha and his servant, Gehazi. 2 Kings iv. v. vi. + Also between Joram king of Israel and the servant of Elisha. 2 Kings + viii. 4, 5, and between Naaman "the Captain of the host of the king of + Syria" and the same person. 2 Kings v. 21-23. The fact stated under + a previous head that servants were always invited guests at public and + social festivals, is in perfect keeping with the foregoing exemplifications + of the prevalent estimation in which servants were held by the Israelites. + + </p> + <p> + Probably no one of the Old Testament patriarchs had more servants + than Job; "This man was the greatest man of all the men of + the east." Job, i. 3. We are not left in the dark as to the condition + of his servants. After asserting his integrity, his strict justice, honesty, + and equity, in his dealings with his fellow men, and declaring "I delivered + the poor," "I was eyes to the blind and feet was I to the lame," + "I was a father to the poor, and the cause which I knew not I searched + out," * * * he says "If I did despise the cause of my man-servant + or my maid-servant when they CONTENDED with me * * * then let mine + arm fall from the shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the + bone." Job. xxix. 12, 15, 16; xxxi. 13, 22. The language employed + in this passage is the phraseology applied in judicial proceedings + to those who implead one another, and whether it be understood literally + or figuratively, shows that whatever difference existed between + Job and his servants in other respects, so far as <em>rights</em> are + concerned, they were on equal ground with him, and that in the matter of daily + intercourse, there was not the least restraint on their + <em>free speech</em> in calling in question all his transactions with + them, and that the relations + + and claims of both parties were adjudicated on the principles of equity + and reciprocal right. "If I <em>despised</em> the cause of my + man-servant," &c. In other words, if I treated it lightly, as though + servants were not men, had not rights, and had not a claim for just dues and + just estimation as human beings. "When they <em>contended</em> with me," + that is, when they plead their rights, claimed what was due to them, or + questioned the justice of any of my dealings with them. + + </p> + <p> + In the context Job virtually affirms as the ground of his just and + equitable treatment of his servants, that they had the same rights as he + had, and were, as human beings, entitled to equal consideration with himself. + By what language could he more forcibly utter his conviction of + the oneness of their common origin and of the identity of their common + nature, necessities, attribute and rights? As soon as he has said, "If + I did despise the cause of my man-servant," &c., he follows it up with + "What then shall I do when God raiseth up? and when he visiteth, + what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb, + make <em>him</em>? and did not one fashion us in the womb." In the next + verse Job glories in the fact that he has not "<em>withheld from the poor + their desire</em>." Is it the "desire" of the poor to be + <em>compelled</em> by the rich to work for them, and without + <em>pay</em>? + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_noown_gib"></a> + III. THE CASE OF THE GIBEONITES. The condition of the inhabitants + of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Hebrew + commonwealth, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and + truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned + from it. Milton's devils made desperate snatches at fruit that turned + to ashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under tormenting + gnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something to ease, or + even to mock them. But for this, it would never have clutched at the + Gibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon cauldron could not + extract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to the + question. What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the Israelites? + 1. <em>It was voluntary</em>. Their own proposition to Joshua was to + become servants. Josh. ix. 8, 11. It was accepted, but the kind of + service which they should perform, was not specified until their gross + imposition came to light; they were then assigned to menial offices in + the Tabernacle. 2. <em>They were not domestic servants in the families of + the Israelites</em>. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated + their own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the functions + of a <em>distinct</em>, though not independent community. They were + subject to the Jewish nation as <i>tributaries</i>. So + far from being distributed among the Israelites and their internal + organization as a distinct people abolished, + + they remained a separate, and, in some respects, an independent + community for many centuries. When attacked by the Amorites, they + applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid—it was rendered, their + enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in their cities. Josh. x. + 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and God sent upon + Israel a three years' famine for it. David inquired of the Gibeonites, + "What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the atonement?" + At their demand, he delivered up to them seven of Saul's descendants. + 2 Sam. xxi. 1-9. The whole transaction was a formal recognition + of the Gibeonites as a distinct people. There is no intimation that + they served either families or individuals of the Israelites, but only the + "house of God," or the Tabernacle. This was established first at + Gilgal, a days' journey from their cities; and then at Shiloh, nearly + two days' journey from them; where it continued about 350 years. + During this period the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and + territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent at any + one time in attendance on the Tabernacle. Wherever allusion is made + to them in the history, the main body are spoken of as <em>at home</em>. + It is preposterous to suppose that all the inhabitants of these four cities + could find employment at the Tabernacle. One of them "was a great city, + as one of the royal cities;" so large, that a confederacy of five kings, + apparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary for + its destruction. It is probable that the men were divided into classes, + ministering in rotation—each class a few days or weeks at a time. As + the priests whose assistants they were, served by courses in rotation a + week at a time; it is not improbable that their periods of service were + so arranged as to correspond. This service was their + <i>national tribute</i> to the Israelites, for the + privilege of residence and protection under their government. No service + seems to have been required of the <em>females</em>. As these Gibeonites + were Canaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by + impudent imposition and lying, we might assuredly expect that they would + reduce <em>them</em> to the condition of chattels, if there was + <em>any</em> case in which God permitted them to do so. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_noown_Egy"></a> + IV. EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. Throughout the Mosaic system, + God warns the Israelites against holding their servants in such a condition + as they were held in by the Egyptians. How often are they + pointed back to the grindings of their prison-house! What motives to + the exercise of justice and kindness towards their servants, are held out + to their fears in threatened judgments; to their hopes in promised + good; and to all within them that could feel, by those oft repeated + words of tenderness and terror! "For ye were bondmen in the land + + of Egypt"—waking anew the memory of tears and anguish, and of the + wrath that avenged them. But what was the bondage of the Israelites + in Egypt? Of what rights were they plundered and what did they retain? + + </p> + <p> + 1. <em>They were not dispersed among the families of + Egypt,[A] but formed a + separate community</em>. Gen. xlvi. 34. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; + xi. 7; iv. 29; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5; vi. 14. 2. <em>They had the + exclusive possession of the land of Goshen,[B]"the best part of the land" of + Egypt</em>. Gen. xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27; Ex. viii. 22; ix. 26; xii. 4. + Goshen must have been at a considerable distance from those parts of + Egypt inhabited by the Egyptians; so far at least as to prevent their + contact with the Israelites, since the reason assigned for locating them in + Goshen was, that shepherds were "an abomination to the Egyptians;" + besides, their employments would naturally lead them out of the settled + parts of Egypt to find a free range of pasturage for their immense flocks + and herds. 3. <em>They lived in permanent dwellings</em>. These were + <em>houses</em>, not <em>tents</em>. In Ex. xii. 7, 22, the two + side <i>posts</i>, and the upper door + <i>posts</i>, and the lintel of the houses are mentioned. + Each family seems to have occupied a house <em>by itself</em>. + Acts vii. 20. Ex. xii. 4—and judging from the regulation about the + eating of the Passover, they could hardly have been small ones, Ex. xii. 4; + probably contained separate apartments, as the entertainment of sojourners + seems to have been a common usage. Ex. iii. 23; and also places for + concealment. Ex. ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been + well apparelled. Ex. xii. 11. 4. <em>They owned "flocks and + herds," and "very much cattle</em>." Ex. xii. 4, 6, 32, 37, 38. From the + fact that "<em>every man</em>" was commanded to kill either a lamb or a + kid, one year old, for the Passover, before the people left Egypt, we infer + that even the poorest of the Israelites owned a flock either of sheep or + goats. Further, the immense multitude of their flocks and herds may be judged + of from the expostulation of Moses with Jehovah. Num. xii. 21, 22. + + "The people among whom I am are six hundred thousand footmen, and + thou hast said I will give them flesh that they may eat a whole month; + shall the flocks and the herds be slain for them to <em>suffice</em> + them." As these six hundred thousand were only the <em>men</em> "from + twenty years old and upward, that were able to go forth to war," + Ex. i. 45, 46; the whole number of the Israelites could not have been less + than three millions and a half. Flocks and herds to "suffice" all these for + food, might surely be called "very much cattle." 5. <em>They had their own + form of government</em>, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, + and their internal organization throughout, though still a province of Egypt, + and <i>tributary</i> to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19, 21; + vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16, 18. 6. <em>They had in a considerable measure, + the disposal of their own time.</em> Ex. iii. 16, 18; xii. 6; ii. 9; and + iv. 27, 29-31. <em>They seem to have practised the fine arts</em>. + Ex. xxxii. 4; xxxv. 22, 35. 7. <em>They were all armed</em>. + Ex. xxxii. 27. 8. <em>They held their possessions independently, and the + Egyptians seem to have regarded them as inviolable</em>. No intimation is + given that the Egyptians dispossessed them of their habitations, or took + away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or implements of agriculture, or + any article of property. 9. <em>All the females seem to have known + something of domestic refinements</em>. They were familiar with instruments + of music, and skilled in the working of fine fabrics. + Ex. xv. 20; xxxv. 25, 26; and both males and females were + able to read and write. Deut. xi. 18-20; xvii. 19; xxvii. 3. + 10. <em>Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult + males</em>. Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could be + inferred; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the + payment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a + supposition. Ex. ii. 29. 11. <em>Their food was abundant and of great + variety</em>. So far from being fed upon a fixed allowance of a single + article, and hastily prepared, "they sat by the flesh-pots," and "did eat + bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3; and their bread was prepared with + leaven. Ex. xii. 15, 39. They ate "the fish freely, the cucumbers, + and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic." Num. + xi. 4, 5; xx. 5. Probably but a small portion of the people were in + the service of the Egyptians at any one time. The extent and variety + of their own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their + crops as would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense + flocks and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must + have kept at home the main body of the nation. During the plague of + darkness, God informs us that "ALL the children of Israel had light in + their dwellings." We infer that they were <em>there</em> to enjoy it. + See also + + Ex. ix. 26. It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only + service named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could + have furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See + also Ex. iv. 29-31. Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, + it was as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish + a given quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively but a + small portion of the nation would be absent <em>at any one time</em>. The + adult males of the Israelites were probably divided into companies, which + relieved each other at stated intervals of weeks or months. It might + have been during one of these periodical furloughs from service that + Aaron performed the journey to Horeb. Ex. iv. 27. At the least + calculation this journey must have consumed <em>eight weeks</em>. Probably + one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the Israelites + in common with the Egyptians. Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of + taking it from their <em>crops</em>, (Goshen being better for + <em>pasturage</em>) they exacted it of them in brick making; and labor + might have been exacted only from the <em>poorer</em> Israelites, the + wealthy being able to pay their tribute in money. The fact that all the + elders of Israel seem to have controlled their own time, + (See Ex. iv. 29; iii. 16; v. 20,) favors the supposition. Ex. iv. 27, 31. + <a name="E4r4_noown_Amer"></a>Contrast this bondage of Egypt with American + slavery. Have our slaves "flocks and herds even very + much cattle?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own, + "sit by the flesh-pots," "eat fish freely," and "eat bread to the full"? + Do they live in a separate community, in their distinct tribes, under + their own rulers, in the exclusive occupation of an extensive tract of + country for the culture of their crops, and for rearing immense herds of + their own cattle—and all these held inviolable by their masters? Are + our female slaves free from exactions of labor and liabilities of outrage? + or when employed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish + woman by the king's daughter? Have they the disposal of their own + time, and the means for cultivating social refinements, for practising + the fine arts, and for personal improvement? THE ISRAELITES UNDER + THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND + PRIVILEGES. True, "all the service wherein they made them serve + was with rigor." But what was this when compared with the incessant + toil of American slaves; the robbery of all their time and earnings, + and even the "power to own any thing, or acquire any thing?" + <a name="E4r4_noown_illfed"></a>a "quart of corn a-day," the legal allowance + of food!<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN33"><sup>C</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN33"></a><a name="E4r4_noown_illclo"></a> their <em>only</em> + clothing for one half the year, "<em>one</em> shirt and + <em>one</em> pair of pantaloons!"<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN34"><sup>D</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN34"></a><a name="E4r4_noown_ovwked"></a><em>two + + hours and a half</em> only, for rest and refreshment in the + twenty-four!<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN35"><sup>E</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN35"></a>—<a name="E4r4_noown_unfdwe"></a>their + dwellings, <em>hovels</em>, unfit for human residence, + + with but one apartment, where both sexes and all ages herd promiscuously + at night, like the beasts of the field.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN36"><sup>F</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN36"></a><a name="E4r4_noown_heathen"></a> Add + to this, the ignorance, + and degradation;<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN37"><sup>G</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN37"></a> the daily + sunderings of kindred, the revelries + + of lust, the lacerations and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by law, and + patronized by public sentiment. What was the bondage of Egypt + + when compared with this? And yet for her oppression of the poor, + God smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she + passed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, + knew her no more. Ah! "I have seen the afflictions of my people, + and I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them." + HE DID COME, and Egypt sank a ruinous heap, and her blood closed + over her. If such was God's retribution for the oppression of + heathen Egypt, of how much sorer punishment shall a Christian people + be thought worthy, who cloak with religion a system, in comparison + with which the bondage of Egypt dwindles to nothing? Let + <a name="E4r4_64"></a> + + those believe who can, that God commissioned his people to rob + others of <em>all</em> their rights, while he denounced against them + wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the <em>far lighter</em> + oppression of Egypt—which + robbed its victims of only the least and cheapest of their + rights, and left the females unplundered even of these. What! Is God + divided against himself? When He had just turned Egypt into a + funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied dead, and + his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of her torment + went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did He + license the VICTIMS of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As + <em>Lawgiver</em>, did he <em>create</em> a system tenfold more + grinding than that for which he had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and + overwhelmed his princes and his hosts, till "hell was moved to meet them at + their coming?" + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN33"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN33">C</a>: See law of North Carolina, Haywood's Manual + 524-5. To show that slaveholders are not better than their laws. We give a + few testimonies. Rev. Thomas Clay, of Georgia, (a slaveholder,) in an address + before the Georgia presbytery, in 1834, speaking of the slave's allowance of + food, says:—"The quantity allowed by custom is a <em>peck of corn a + week.</em>" + + </p> + <p> + The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser of May 30, 1788, says, "a + <em>single peck of corn a week, or the like measure of rice</em>, is the + ordinary quantity of provision for a <em>hard-working</em> slave; to + which a small quantity of meat is occasionally, though <em>rarely</em>, + added." + + </p> + <p> + The Gradual Emancipation Society of North Carolina, in their Report for + 1836, signed Moses Swaim, President, and William Swaim, Secretary, says, + in describing the condition of slaves in the Eastern part of that State, "The + master puts the unfortunate wretches upon short allowances, scarcely + sufficient for their sustenance, so that a + <em>great part</em> of them go <em>half naked</em> and <em>half + starved</em> much of the time." See Minutes of the American Convention, + convened in Baltimore, Oct. 25, 1826. + + </p> + <p> + Rev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee, and for many years a preacher in + slave states, says of the food of slaves, "It <em>often</em> happens that + what will <em>barely keep them alive</em>, is all that a cruel avarice + will allow them. Hence, in some instances, their allowance has been reduced + to a <em>single pint of corn each</em>, during the day and night. And + some have no better allowance than a small portion of cotton seed; while + perhaps they are not permitted to taste meat so much as once in the course + of seven years. <em>Thousands of them are pressed with the gnawings of + cruel hunger during their whole lives.</em>" Rankin's Letters on Slavery, + pp. 57, 58. + + </p> + <p> + Hon. Robert J. Turnbull, of Charleston, S.C., a slaveholder, says, "The + subsistence of the slaves consists, from March until August, of corn ground + into grits, or meal, made into what is called + <i>hominy</i>, or baked into corn bread. + The other six months, they are fed upon the sweet potatoe. Meat, when given, + is only by way of <em>indulgence or favor</em>." <em>See "Refutation + of the Calumnies circulated against the Southern and Western States," by a + South Carolinian. Charleston</em>, 1822. + + </p> + <p> + Asa A. Stone, a theological student, residing at Natchez, Mississippi, wrote + a letter to the editor of the New York Evangelist in 1835, in which he says, + "On almost every plantation, the hands suffer more or less from hunger at + some seasons of almost every year. There is always a <em>good deal of + suffering</em> from hunger. On many plantations, and particularly in + Louisiana, the slaves are in a condition of <em>almost utter + famishment</em> during a great portion of the year." + + </p> + <p> + At the commencement of his letter, Mr. S. says, "Intending, as I do, that my + statements shall be relied on, and knowing that, should you think fit to + publish this communication, they will come to this country, where their + correctness may be tested by comparison with real life, I make them with the + utmost care and precaution." + + </p> + <p> + President Edwards, the younger, in a sermon preached half a century ago, at + New Haven, Conn., says, speaking of the allowance of food given to + slaves—"They are supplied with barely enough to keep them from starving." + + </p> + <p> + In the debate on the Missouri question in the U.S. Congress, 1819-20, the + admission of Missouri to the Union, as a slave state, was urged, among other + grounds as a measure of humanity to the slaves of the south. Mr. Smyth, a + member of Congress, from Virginia, and a large slaveholder, said, "The plan + of our opponents seems to be to confine the slave population to the southern + states, to the countries where sugar, cotton, and tobacco are cultivated. + But, sir, by confining the slaves to a part of the country where crops are + raised for exportation, and the bread and meat are purchased, + <em>you doom them to scarcity and hunger</em>. Is it not + obvious that the way to render their situation more comfortable is to allow + them to be taken where there is not the same motive to force the slave to + INCESSANT TOIL that there is in the country where cotton, sugar, and tobacco + are raised for exportation. It is proposed to hem in the blacks + <em>where they are</em> HARD WORKED and ILL FED, that they may be rendered + unproductive and the race be prevented from increasing. * * * The proposed + measure would be EXTREME CRUELTY to the blacks. * * * You would * * * + doom them to SCARCITY and HARD LABOR."—[Speech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., + Jan. 28, 1820.]—See National + Intelligencer. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN34"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN34">D</a>: See law of + Louisiana, Martin's Digest, 6, 10. Mr. Bouldin, a Virginia slaveholder, + in a speech in Congress, Feb. 16, 1835, (see National Intelligencer of + that date,) said "<em>he knew</em> that many negroes had died from + exposure to weather." Mr. B. adds, "they are clad in a flimsy fabric that + will turn neither wind nor water." + + </p> + <p> + Rev. John Rankin says, in his Letters on slavery, page 57, "In every + slaveholding state, <em>many slaves suffer extremely</em>, both while + they labor and while they sleep, <em>for want of clothing</em> to keep + them warm. Often they are driven through frost and snow without either + stocking or shoe, until the path they tread is died with their blood. And + when they return to their miserable huts at night, they find not there the + means of comfortable rest; but <em>on the cold ground they must lie without + covering, and shiver while they + slumber</em>." + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN35"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN35">E</a>: See law of Louisiana, act of + July 7, 1806, Martin's Digest, 6, 10-12. The law of South Carolina permits + the master to <em>compel</em> his slaves to work fifteen hours in the + twenty-four, in summer, and fourteen in the winter—which would be in + winter, from daybreak in the morning until <em>four hours</em> after + sunset!—See 2 Brevard's Digest, 243. The preamble of this law + commences thus: "Whereas, <em>many</em> owners of slaves + <em>do confine them so closely to hard labor that they have not sufficient + time for natural rest:</em> be it therefore enacted," &c. In a work + entitled "Travels in Louisiana in 1802," translated from the French, + by John Davis, is the following testimony under this head:— + + + </p> + <p> + "The labor of Slaves in Louisiana is <em>not</em> severe, unless it be + at the rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months, then they + work <em>both night and day</em>. Abridged of their sleep, they scarce + retire to rest during the whole period." See page 81. On the 87th page of + the same work, the writer says, <em>"Both in summer and winter</em> the + slaves must be <em>in the field</em> by the <em>first dawn of + day."</em> And yet he says, "the labor of the slave is <em>not + severe</em>, except at the rolling of sugars!" The work abounds in eulogies + of slavery. + + </p> + <p> + In the "History of South Carolina and Georgia," vol. 1, p. 120, is the + following: "<em>So laborious</em> is the task of raising, beating, and + cleaning rice, that had it been possible to obtain European servants in + sufficient numbers, <em>thousands and tens of thousands</em> MUST HAVE + PERISHED." + + </p> + <p> + In an article on the agriculture of Louisiana, published in the second + number of the "Western Review" is the following:—"The work is admitted + to be severe for the hands, (slaves) requiring, when the process of making + sugar is commenced, TO BE PRESSED NIGHT AND DAY." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Philemon Bliss, of Ohio, in his letters from Florida, in 1835, says, + "The negroes commence labor by daylight in the morning, and excepting the + plowboys, who must feed and rest their horses, do not leave the field till + dark in the evening." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Stone, in his letter from Natchez, an extract of which was given above, + says, "It is a general rule on all regular plantations, that the slaves rise + in season in the morning, to <em>be in the field as soon as it is light + enough for them to see to work</em>, and remain there until it is + <em>so dark that they cannot see</em>. This is the case at all seasons of + the year." + + </p> + <p> + President Edwards, in the sermon already extracted from, says, "The slaves + are kept at hard labor from <em>five o'clock in the morning till nine at + night</em>, excepting time to eat twice during the day." + + </p> + <p> + Hon. R.J. Turnbull, a South Carolina slaveholder, already quoted, speaking + of the harvesting of cotton, says: <em>"All the pregnant women</em> even, + on the plantation, and weak and <em>sickly</em> negroes incapable of other + labor, are then <em>in requisition</em>." * * * See "Refutation of the + Calumnies circulated against the Southern and Western States," by a South + Carolinian. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN36"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN36">F</a>: A late + number of the "Western Medical Reformer" contains a dissertation + by a Kentucky physician, on <em>Cachexia Africana</em>, or African + consumption, in which the writer says— + + + </p> + <p> + "This form of disease deserves more attention from the medical profession + than it has heretofore elicited. Among the causes may be named the mode and + manner in which the negroes live. They are <em>crowded</em> together in a + <em>small hut</em>, sometimes having an imperfect, and sometimes no + floor—and seldom raised from the ground, illy ventilated, and + surrounded with filth. Their diet and clothing, are also causes which might + be enumerated as exciting agents. They live on a coarse, crude and + unwholesome diet, and are imperfectly clothed, both summer and winter; + sleeping upon filthy and frequently damp beds." + + </p> + <p> + Hon. R.J. Turnbull, of South Carolina, whose testimony on another point + has been given above, says of the slaves, that they live in "<em>clay + cabins</em>, with clay chimneys," &c. Mr. Clay, a Georgia slaveholder, + from whom an extract has been given already, says, speaking of the dwellings + of the slaves, "Too many individuals of both sexes are crowded into one + house, and the proper separation of apartments <em>cannot</em> be + observed. That the slaves are insensible to the evils arising from it, does + not in the least lessen the unhappy consequences." Clay's Address before the + Presbytery of + Georgia.—P. 13. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN37"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN37">G</a>: Rev. C.C. Jones, late of Georgia, + now Professor in the Theological Seminary at Columbia, South Carolina, made + a report before the presbytery of Georgia, in 1833, on the moral condition + of the slave population, which report + was published under the direction of the presbytery. In that report Mr. + Jones says, "They, the slaves, are shut out from our sympathies and efforts as + immortal beings, and are educated and disciplined as creatures of profit, + and of profit only, for this world." + + </p> + <p> + In a sermon preached by Mr. Jones, before two associations of planters, in + Georgia, in 1831, speaking of the slaves he says, "They are a nation of + HEATHEN in our very midst." "What have we done for our poor negroes? With + shame we must confess that we have done NOTHING!" "How can you pray for + Christ's kingdom to come while you are neglecting a people perishing for lack + of vision around your very doors." "We withhold the Bible from our servants + and keep them in ignorance of it, while we <em>will</em> not use the + means to have it read and explained to them." Jones' Sermon, pp. 7, 9. + + </p> + <p> + An official report of the Presbyterian Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, + adopted at its session in Columbia, S.C., and published in the Charleston + Observer of March 22, 1834, speaking of the slaves, says, "There are over + <em>two millions</em> of <em>human beings</em>, in the condition of + HEATHEN, and, in some respects, <em>in a worse condition</em>!" + * * * "From long continued and close observation, we believe that their moral + and religious condition is such, as that they may justly be considered the + <em>heathen</em> of this Christian country, and will + <em>bear comparison with heathen in any country in the world</em>." + * * * "The negroes are destitute of the privileges of the gospel, and + <em>ever will be under the present state of things."</em> Report, + &c., p. 4. + + </p> + <p> + A writer in the Church Advocate, published in Lexington, Ky., says, "The + poor negroes are left in the ways of spiritual darkness, no efforts are being + made for their enlightenment, no seed is being sown, nothing but a moral + wilderness is seen, over which the soul sickens—the heart of Christian + sympathy bleeds. Here nothing is presented but a moral waste, as + <em>extensive as our influence</em>, as appalling as the valley of death." + + </p> + <p> + The following is an extract of a letter from Bishop Andrew of the Methodist + Episcopal Church, to Messrs. Garrit and Maffit, editors of the "Western + Methodist," then published at Nashville, Tennessee. + + </p> + <p> + "<i>Augusta, Jan. 29, 1835.</i></p> + <p> + "The Christians of the South owe a heavy debt to slaves on their plantations, + and the ministers of Christ especially are debtors to the whole slave + population. I fear a cry goes up to heaven on this subject against us; and + how, I ask, shall the scores who have left the ministry of the Word, that they + may make corn and cotton, and buy and sell, and get gain, meet this cry at the + bar of God? and what shall the hundreds of money-making and money-loving + masters, who have grown rich by the toil and sweat of their slaves, and + <em>left their souls to perish</em>, say when they go with them to the + judgment of the great day?" + + </p> + <p> + "The Kentucky Union for the moral and religious improvement of the colored + race,"—an association composed of some of the most influential + ministers and laymen of Kentucky, says in a general circular to the religious + public, "To the female character among the black population, we cannot allude + but with feelings of the bitterest shame. A similar condition of moral + pollution, and utter disregard of a pure and virtuous reputation, is to be + found only <em>without the pale of Christendom</em>. That such a state of + society should exist in a Christian nation, without calling forth any + particular attention to its existence, though ever before our eyes and in our + families, is a moral phenomenon at once unaccountable and disgraceful." + + </p> + <p> + Rev. James A. Thome, a native of Kentucky, and still residing there, said + in a speech in New York, May 1834, speaking of licentiousness among the + slaves, "I would not have you fail to understand that this is a + <em>general</em> evil. Sir, what I now say, I say from deliberate + conviction of its truth; that the slave states are Sodoms, and almost every + village family is a brothel. (In this, I refer to the inmates of the kitchen, + and not to the whites.)" + + </p> + <p> + A writer in the "Western Luminary," published in Lexington, Ky., made + the following declaration to the same point in the number of that paper for + May 7, 1835: "There is one topic to which I will allude, which will serve to + establish the heathenism of this population. I allude to the UNIVERSAL + LICENTIOUSNESS which prevails. <em>Chastity is no virtue among + them</em>—its violation neither injures female character in their own + estimation, or that of their master or mistress—no instruction is ever + given, <em>no censure pronounced</em>. I speak not of the world. I SPEAK + OF CHRISTIAN FAMILIES GENERALLY." + + </p> + <p> + Rev. Mr. Converse, long a resident of Virginia, and agent of the + Colonization Society, said, in a sermon before the Vt. C.S.—"Almost + nothing is done to instruct the slaves in the principles and duties of the + Christian religion. * * * The majority are emphatically + <em>heathens</em>. * * Pious masters (with some honorable exceptions) are + criminally negligent of giving religious instruction to their slaves. + * * * They can and do instruct their own children, and + <em>perhaps</em> their house servants; while those called "field hands" + live, and labor, and die, without being told by their <em>pious</em> + masters (?) that Jesus Christ died to save sinners." + + </p> + <p> + The page is already so loaded with references that we forbear. For testimony + from the mouths of slaveholders to the terrible lacerations and other + nameless outrages inflicted on the slaves, the reader is referred to the + number of the Anti-Slavery Record for Jan. 1837. + </p> + <p> + We now proceed to examine the various objections which will doubtless + be set in array against all the foregoing conclusions. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_OBJ"></a> + OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. + + </h3> + <p> + The advocates of slavery find themselves at their wit's end in + pressing the Bible into their service. Every movement shows them hard + pushed. Their ever-varying shifts, their forced constructions and blind + guesswork, proclaim both their <em>cause</em> desperate, and themselves. + Meanwhile their invocations for help to "those good old slaveholders + and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,"<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN38"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN38"></a> sent up without ceasing + + from the midst of their convulsions, avail as little as did the screams + and lacerations of the prophets of Baal to bring an answer of fire. The + Bible defences thrown around slavery by the professed ministers of the + Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and historical facts it + were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, ignorance, or blasphemy, + + predominates, in the compound; each strives so lustily for the mastery, + it may be set down a drawn battle. How often has it been bruited + that the color of the negro is the <i>Cain-mark</i>, + propagated downward. Cain's posterity started an opposition to the ark, + forsooth, and rode out the flood with flying streamers! How could miracle be + more worthily employed, or better vindicate the ways of God to man than by + pointing such an argument, and filling out for slaveholders a Divine + title-deed! + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN38"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN38">A</a>: The + Presbytery of Harmony, South Carolina, at their meeting in Wainsborough, + S.C., Oct. 28, 1836, appointed a special committee to report on slavery. + The following resolution is a part of the report adopted by the Presbytery. + + </p> + <p> + "Resolved, That slavery has existed from the days of those GOOD OLD + SLAVEHOLDERS AND PATRIARCHS, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who are now in the + kingdom of Heaven." + + </p> + <p> + Abraham receives abundant honor at the hands of slave-holding divines. + Not because he was the "father of the faithful," forsook home and country for + the truth's sake, was the most eminent preacher and practiser of righteousness + in his day; nay, verily, for all this he gets faint praise; but then he had + "SERVANTS BOUGHT WITH MONEY!!!" This is the finishing touch of his character, + and its effect on slaveholders is electrical. Prose fledges into poetry, cold + compliments warm into praise, eulogy rarifies into panegyric and goes off in + rhapsody. In their ecstasies over Abraham, Isaac's paramount claims to their + homage are lamentably lost sight of. It is quite unaccountable, that in their + manifold oglings over Abraham's "servants bought with money," no slaveholder + is ever caught casting loving side-glances at Gen. xxvii. 29, 37, where + Isaac, addressing Jacob, says, "Be <em>lord</em> over thy brethren and + let thy mother's sons <em>bow down</em> to thee." And afterwards, + addressing Esau, he says, speaking of the birth-right immunities confirmed to + Jacob, "Behold I have made him thy <em>Lord</em> and all his brethren + have I GIVEN TO HIM FOR SERVANTS!" + + </p> + <p> + Here is a charter for slaveholding, under the sign manual of that "good old + slaveholder and patriarch, Isaac." Yea, more—a "Divine Warrant" for a + father holding his <em>children</em> as slaves and bequeathing them as + property to his heirs! Better still, it proves that the favorite practice + amongst our slaveholders of bequeathing their <em>colored</em> children + to those of a different hue, was a "Divine institution," for Isaac + "<em>gave</em>" Esau, who was "<em>red</em> all over," to Jacob, + "<em>as a servant</em>." Now gentlemen, "honor to whom honor." Let Isaac + no longer be stinted of the glory that is his due as the great prototype of + that "peculiar domestic institution," of which you are eminent patrons, that + nice discrimination, by which a father, in his will, makes part of his + children <i>property</i>, and the rest, their + <i>proprietors</i>, whenever the propriety of such a + disposition is indicated, as in the case of Jacob and Esau, by the decisive + tokens of COLOR and HAIR, (for, to show that Esau was Jacob's + <em>rightful</em> property after he was "given to him" by Isaac "for a + servant," the difference in <em>hair</em> as well as color, + is expressly stated by inspiration!) + + </p> + <p> + One prominent feature of patriarchal example has been quite overlooked by + slaveholders. We mean the special care of Isaac to inform Jacob that those + "given to him as servants" were "HIS BRETHREN," (twice repeated.) The deep + veneration of slaveholders for every thing patriarchal, clears them from all + suspicion of <em>designedly</em> neglecting this authoritative precedent, + and their admirable zeal to perpetuate patriarchal fashions, proves this + seeming neglect, a mere <em>oversight</em>: and is an all-sufficient + guarantee that henceforward they will religiously illustrate in their own + practice, the beauty of this hitherto neglected patriarchal usage. True, it + would be an odd codicil to a will, for a slaveholder, after bequeathing to + <em>some</em> of his children, all his slaves, to add a supplement, + informing them that such and such and such of them were their + <em>brothers and sisters</em>. Doubtless it would be at first a sore + trial also, but what <em>pious</em> slaveholder would not be sustained + under it by the reflection that he was humbly following in the footsteps of + his illustrious patriarchal predecessors! + + </p> + <p> + Great reformers must make great sacrifices, and if the world is to be brought + back to the purity of patriarchal times, upon whom will the ends of the earth + come, to whom will all trembling hearts and failing eyes spontaneously turn as + leaders to conduct the forlorn hope through the wilderness to that promised + land, if not to slaveholders, those disinterested pioneers whose self-denying + labors have founded far and wide the "patriarchal institution" of + <i>concubinage</i>, and through evil report and good + report, have faithfully stamped their own image and superscription, in + variegated hues, upon the faces of a swarming progeny from generation to + generation. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_Canaan"></a> + OBJECTION I. "<em>Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be + unto his brethren.</em>" Gen. ix. 25. + + </p> + <p> + This prophecy of Noah is the <i>vade mecum</i> of + slaveholders, and they never venture abroad without it; it is a pocket-piece + for sudden occasion, a keepsake to dote over, a charm to spell-bind + opposition, and a magnet to draw to their standard "whatsoever worketh + abomination or maketh a lie." But "cursed be Canaan" is a poor drug to ease a + throbbing conscience—a mocking lullaby to unquiet tossings. Those + who justify negro slavery by the curse on Canaan, <em>assume</em> as + usual all the points in debate. 1. That <i>slavery</i> + was prophesied, rather than mere <i>service</i> to others, + and <i>individual</i> bondage rather than + <i>national</i> subjection and tribute. 2. That + the <em>prediction</em> of crime justifies it; or at least absolves those + whose crimes fulfil it. How piously the Pharaohs might have quoted the + prophecy, "<em>Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, + and they shall afflict them four hundred years.</em>" And then, what saints + were those that crucified the Lord of glory! 3. That the Africans are + descended from Canaan. Africa was peopled from Egypt and Ethiopia, which + countries were settled by Mizraim and Cush. For the location and boundaries + of Canaan's posterity, see Gen. x. 15-19. So a prophecy of evil to one + people, is quoted to justify its infliction upon another. Perhaps it may be + argued that Canaan includes all Ham's posterity. If so, the prophecy is yet + unfulfilled. The other sons of Ham settled Egypt and Assyria, and, + conjointly with Shem, Persia, and afterward, to some extent, the Grecian + and Roman empires. The history of these nations gives no verification + of the prophecy. Whereas, the history of Canaan's descendants + for more than three thousand years, is a record of its fulfillment. + First, they were put to tribute by the Israelites; then by the Medes + and Persians; then by the Macedonians, Grecians and Romans, successively; + and finally, were subjected by the Ottoman dynasty, where + they yet remain. Thus Canaan has been for ages the servant mainly of + Shem and Japhet, and secondarily of the other sons of Ham. It may still + be objected, that though Canaan alone is <em>named</em>, yet the 22d and + 24th + + verses show the posterity of Ham in general to be meant. "And Ham, + the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two + brethren without." "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what + his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said," &c. It is argued that + this "<em>younger</em> son" cannot be Canaan, + as he was the <em>grandson</em> of Noah, and therefore it must be + Ham. We answer, whoever that + "<em>younger son</em>" was, Canaan alone was + named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word + <i>Ben</i>, signifies son, grandson, or + <em>any one</em> of the posterity of an + individual.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN39"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN39"></a> "<em>Know ye Laban, the</em> SON (grandson) <em>of + Nahor</em>?" Gen. xxix. 5. "<em>Mephibosheth the</em> SON (grandson) + <em>of Saul</em>." 2 Sam. xix. 24; 2 Sam. ix. 6. "<em>The driving of + Jehu the</em> SON (grandson) <em>of Nimshi</em>." 2 Kings ix. 20. See + also Ruth iv. 17; 2 Sam. xxi. 6; Gen. xxxi. 55. Shall we forbid the inspired + writer to use the same word when speaking of Noah's + grandson? Further, Ham was not the "<em>younger</em> son." The order of + enumeration makes him the <em>second</em> son. If it be said that Bible + usage varies, the order of birth not always being observed in enumerations; + the reply is, that, enumeration in that order, is the <em>rule</em>, in + any other order the <em>exception</em>. Besides, if a younger member of a + family takes precedence of older ones in the family record, it is a mark of + pre-eminence, either in endowments, or providential instrumentality. Abraham, + though sixty years younger than his eldest brother, stands first in the + family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history shows him pre-eminent; besides, + the Hebrew word + <i>Hăkkātān</i> + rendered "the <i>younger</i>," means the + <i>little, small</i>. + The same word is used in Isa. lx. 22. "A LITTLE ONE <em>shall become + a thousand</em>." Isa. xxii. 24. "<em>All vessels of</em> SMALL + <em>quantity</em>." Ps. cxv. 13. "<em>He will bless them that fear the + Lord both</em> SMALL <em>and great</em>." Ex. xviii, 22. + "<em>But every</em> SMALL <em>matter they shall judge</em>." It would + be a literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus, "when + Noah knew what his little son,"<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN40"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN40"></a> or grandson + (<i>Bēno + Hăkkātān</i>) "had done unto him, he said cursed be + Canaan," &c. Further, even if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, + the assumption that their enslavement fulfils this prophecy, lacks even + plausibility, for, only a <em>fraction</em> of the inhabitants of Africa + have at any time been the slaves of other nations. If the objector say in + reply, that a large majority of the Africans have always been slaves + <em>at home</em>, we answer: <em>It is false in point + + of fact</em>, though zealously bruited often to serve a turn; and + <em>if it were true</em>, how does it help the argument? The prophecy + was, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be <em>unto + his</em> BRETHREN.," not unto <em>himself!</em></p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN39"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN39">A</a>: So + āv, the Hebrew word for father, signifies + any ancestor, however remote. 2 Chron. xvii. 3; xxviii. 1; xxxiv. 2; + Dan. v. 2. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN40"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN40">B</a>: The French follows + the same analogy; <i>grandson</i> being + <i>petit fils</i> (little son.) + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_money"></a> + OBJECTION II.—"<em>If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, + and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, + if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his + money.</em>" Ex. xxi. 20, 21. What was the design of this regulation? + Was it to grant masters an indulgence to beat servants with impunity, + and an assurance, that if they beat them to death, the offence should + not be <em>capital</em>? This is substantially what commentators tell us. + What Deity do such men worship? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned + on human hecatombs, and snuffing carnage for incense? Did + He who thundered from Sinai's flames, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," offer + a bounty on <em>murder</em>? Whoever analyzes the Mosaic system, will + often find a moot court in session, trying law points, settling definitions, + or laying down rules of evidence. Num. xxxv. 10-22; Deut. xix. 4-6; + Lev. xxiv. 19-22; Ex. xxi. 18, 19, are some of the cases stated, + with tests furnished the judges by which to detect <em>the intent</em>, + in actions brought before them. Their ignorance of judicial proceedings, + laws of evidence, &c., made such instructions necessary. The detail + gone into, in the verses quoted, is manifestly to enable them to get at + the <em>motive</em> and find out whether the master <em>designed</em> + to kill. 1. "If a man smite his servant with a <em>rod</em>."—The + instrument used, gives a clue to the <em>intent</em>. See + Num. xxxv. 16-18. A <em>rod</em>, not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, + nor any other death-weapon—hence, from the <em>kind</em> of + instrument, no design to <em>kill</em> would be inferred; for + <em>intent</em> to kill would hardly have taken a <em>rod</em> for + its weapon. But if the servant "<em>die under his hand</em>," then the + unfitness of the instrument, is point blank against him; for, striking with a + <em>rod</em> so as to cause death, presupposed very many blows and great + violence, and this kept up till the death-gasp, showed an + <em>intent to kill</em>. Hence "He shall <em>surely</em> be punished." + But if he continued a day or two, the <em>length of time that he + lived</em>, the <em>kind</em> of instrument used, and the master's + pecuniary interest in his <em>life</em>, ("he is his <em>money</em>,") + all made a strong case of presumptive evidence, showing that the master did + not <em>design</em> to kill. Further, the word + <i>nākăm</i>, + here rendered <em>punished</em>, occurs thirty-five times in the + Old Testament, and in almost every place is translated "<em>avenge</em>," + in a few, "<i>to take vengeance</i>," or + "<i>to revenge</i>," and in this instance ALONE, + "<i>punish</i>." As it stands in our translation, the + pronoun preceding it, refers to the <i>master</i>, + whereas it should refer to the <i>crime</i>, and the word + + rendered <i>punished</i>, should have been rendered + <i>avenged</i>. The meaning + is this: If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die + under his hand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, + <em>by avenging it shall be avenged</em>; that is, the <em>death</em> + of the servant shall be <em>avenged</em> by the <em>death</em> of the + master. So in the next verse, "If he continue a day or two," his death is not + to be avenged by the <em>death</em> of the + <i>master</i>, as in that case the crime was to be + adjudged <i>manslaughter</i>, and + not <i>murder</i>. In the following verse, another case + of personal injury is stated, for which the injurer is to pay + <em>a sum of money</em>; and yet our + translators employ the same phraseology in both places! One, an instance + of deliberate, wanton, killing by piecemeal; the other, an accidental, + and comparatively slight injury—of the inflicter, in both cases, + they say the same thing! Now, just the discrimination to be looked + for where GOD legislates, is marked in the original. In the case of + the servant wilfully murdered, He says, "It (the death) shall surely be + <em>avenged</em>," that is, the life of the wrong doer shall expiate the + crime. The same word is used in the Old Testament, when the greatest + wrongs are redressed, by devoting the perpetrators to + <em>destruction</em>. In the case of the unintentional injury, in the + following verse, God says, "He shall surely be <em>fined</em>, + (<i>ānăsh</i>.) "He shall + <em>pay</em> as the judges determine." The simple meaning of the word + <i>ānăsh</i>, is to lay a + fine. It is used in Deut. xxii. 19: "They shall + <i>amerce</i> him in one hundred + shekels," and in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3: "He condemned + (<i>mulcted</i>) the + land in a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold." That + <em>avenging</em> the death of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor + stripes, nor a fine but that it was <em>taking the master's life</em> we + infer, 1. From the <em>use</em> of the word + <i>nākām</i>. See + Gen. iv. 24; Josh. x. 13; Judg. xv. 7; xvi. 28; 1 Sam. xiv. 24; xviii. 25; + xxv. 31; 2 Sam. iv. 8; Judg. v. 2; 1 Sam. xxv. 26-33. 2. From the express + statute, Lev. xxiv. 17: "He that killeth ANY man shall surely be put to + death." Also, Num. xxxv. 30, 31: "Whoso killeth ANY person, the murderer shall + be put to death. Moreover, ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a + murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." + 3. The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, "Death by the sword + shall surely be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem, "Vengeance + shall be taken for him to the <em>uttermost</em>." Jarchi, the same. The + Samaritan version: "He shall die the death." Again, the clause "for + he is his money," is quoted to prove that the servant is his master's + property, and therefore, if he died, the master was not to be punished. + The assumption is, that the phrase, "HE IS HIS MONEY," proves not only + that the servant is <em>worth money</em> to the master, but that he is an + <em>article + + of property</em>. If the advocates of slavery insist upon taking this + principle of interpretation into the Bible, and turning it loose, let them + stand and draw in self-defence. If they endorse for it at one point, they must + stand sponsors all around the circle. It will be too late to cry for quarter + when its stroke clears the table, and tilts them among the sweepings beneath. + The Bible abounds with such expressions as the following: "This + (bread) <em>is</em> my body;" "all they (the Israelites) <em>are</em> + brass and tin;" this (water) <em>is</em> the blood of the men who went in + jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord God <em>is</em> a sun;" "the seven + good ears <em>are</em> seven years;" "the tree of the field + <em>is</em> man's life;" "God <em>is</em> a consuming fire;" "he + <em>is</em> his money," &c. A passion for the exact + <em>literalities</em> of the Bible is too amiable, not to be gratified in + this case. The words in the original are + (<i>Káspo-hu</i>,) "his + <i>silver</i> is he." The objector's principle of + interpretation is a philosopher's stone! Its miracle touch transmutes + five feet eight inches of flesh and bones into <em>solid silver</em>! + Quite a <em>permanent</em> servant, if not so nimble + withal—reasoning against <em>"forever</em>," + is forestalled henceforth, and, Deut. xxiii. 15, quite outwitted. + The obvious meaning of the phrase, "<em>He is his money</em>," is, he is + <em>worth money</em> to his master, and since, if the master had killed + him, it would have taken money out of his pocket, the <em>pecuniary + loss</em>, the <em>kind of instrument used</em>, and <em>the fact of + his living sometime after the injury</em>, (if the master + <em>meant</em> to kill, he would be likely to <em>do</em> it while + about it.) all together make a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing + the master from <em>intent to kill</em>. But let us look at the + objector's <em>inferences</em>. One is, that as the master might dispose + of his <em>property</em> as he pleased, he was not to be punished, if he + destroyed it. Whether the servant died under the master's hand, or after a day + or two, he was <em>equally</em> his property, and the objector admits that + in the <em>first</em> case the master is to be "surely punished" for + destroying <em>his own property</em>! The other inference + is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the master + of <em>intent to kill</em>, the loss of the servant would be a sufficient + punishment for inflicting the injury which caused his death. This inference + makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A <em>pecuniary + loss</em> was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the + <em>life</em> of another. In such case, the law spurned money, whatever + the sum. God would not cheapen human life, by balancing it with such a weight. + "Ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer, but he + shall surely be put to death." Num. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable + homicide, where an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no + sum of money availed to release from confinement in the city of refuge, + until the death of the High Priest. Num. xxxv. 32. The doctrine + + that the loss of the servant would be a penalty <em>adequate</em> to the + desert of the master, admits his <em>guilt</em> and his desert of + <em>some</em> punishment, and it prescribes a kind of punishment, rejected + by the law, in all cases where man took the life of man, whether with or + without intent to kill. In short, the objector annuls an integral part of the + system—makes a <em>new</em> law, and coolly metes out such penalty + as he thinks fit. Divine legislation revised and improved! The master who + struck out his servant's tooth, whether intentionally or not, was required to + set him free. The <em>pecuniary loss</em> to the master was the same as + though he had killed him. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant + so that he dies of his wounds; another accidentally strikes out his + servant's tooth,—<em>the pecuniary loss of both masters is the + same</em>. If the loss of the servant's services is punishment sufficient + for the crime of killing him, would God command the same punishment for the + accidental knocking out of a <em>tooth</em>? Indeed, unless the injury was + done <em>inadvertently</em>, the loss of the servant's services was only + a part of the punishment—mere reparation to the <em>individual</em> + for injury done; the main punishment, that strictly + <i>judicial</i>, was reparation to the + <em>community</em>. To set the servant <em>free</em>, and thus + proclaim his injury, his right to redress, and the measure of + it—answered not the ends of <em>public</em> justice. The + law made an example of the offender, that "those that remain might + hear and fear." "If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he + hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for breach, eye for + eye, tooth for tooth. Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the + STRANGER as for one of your own country." Lev. xxiv. 19, 20, 22. + Finally, if a master smote out <em>his</em> servant's tooth, the law smote + out his tooth—thus redressing the <em>public</em> wrong; and it + cancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus giving some + compensation for the injury done, and exempting him from perilous liabilities + in future. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_Lev25_44"></a> + OBJECTION III. "Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt + have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye + buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers + that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that + are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your + possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after + you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen + forever." Lev. xxv. 44-46. + + </h3> + <p> + The <em>points</em> in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic + system sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." 3. + "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." 4. "FOREVER." + + </p> + <p> + We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from + these terms. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_Lev25_44_bond"></a> + 1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called + "<i>bondmen</i>," while others are called + "<i>servants</i>," is quoted as proof + that the former were slaves. As the caprices of King James' translators + were not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The + word here rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants elsewhere. + The Hebrew word + "<i>ĕbĕdh</i>," the plural + of which is here translated "<i>bondmen</i>," is often + applied to Christ. "Behold my <i>servant</i> + (bondman, slave?) whom I uphold." Isa. xlii. 1. "Behold my + <i>servant</i> (Christ) shall deal prudently." + Isa. lii. 13. "And he said it is a light thing that thou (Christ) shouldst be + my <i>servant</i>." Isa. xlix. 6. "To a + <i>servant</i> of rulers." Isa. xlix. 7. "By his knowledge + shall my righteous <i>servant</i> (Christ) justify many." + Is. liii. 11. "Behold I will bring forth my + <i>servant</i> the BRANCH." Zech. iii. 8. In 1 Kings + xii. 6, 7, it is applied to King Rehoboam. "And they spake unto + him, saying if thou wilt be a <i>servant</i> unto this + people, then they will be thy <i>servants</i> forever." + In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation. The word is + used to designate those who perform service for <em>individuals or + families</em>, about thirty-five times in the Old Testament. + To designate <i>tributaries</i> about twenty-five times. + To designate the <i>subjects of government</i>, about + thirty-three times. To designate the worshippers both of the true God, and of + false gods, about seventy times. It is also used in salutations and courteous + addresses nearly one hundred times. In fine, the word is applied to all + persons doing service for others, and that <em>merely to designate them as + the performers of such service</em>, whatever it might be, or whatever the + ground on which it might be rendered. To argue from the fact, of this word + being used to designate domestic servants, that they were made servants by + <em>force</em>, worked without pay, and held as articles + of property, is such a gross assumption and absurdity as to + make formal refutation ridiculous. We repeat what has been shown + above, that the word rendered bondmen in Lev. xxv. 44, is used to + point out persons rendering service for others, totally irrespective of + the principle on which that service was rendered; as is manifest from + the fact that it is applied indiscriminately to tributaries, to domestics, to + all the subjects of governments, to magistrates, to all governmental + officers, to younger sons—defining their relation to the first born, who + is called <em>lord</em> and <em>ruler</em>—to prophets, to + kings, and to the Messiah. To argue from the meaning of the word + <i>ĕbĕdh</i> as used in the + Old Testament, that those to whom it was applied rendered service against + + their will, and without pay, does violence to the scripture use of the + term, sets at nought all rules of interpretation, and outrages common + sense. If <em>any</em> inference as to the meaning of the term is to be + drawn from the condition and relations of the various classes of persons, to + whom it is applied, the only legitimate one would seem to be, that the + term designates a person who renders service to another in return for + something of value received from him. The same remark applies to + the Hebrew verb <i>ăbădh</i>, + to serve, answering to the noun + <i>ĕbĕdh</i> (servant). + It is used in the Old Testament to describe the + <i>serving</i> of + tributaries, of worshippers, of domestics, of Levites, of sons to a father, + of younger brothers to the elder, of subjects to a ruler, of hirelings, of + soldiers, of public officers to the government, of a host to his guests, + &c. Of these it is used to describe the serving of + <i>worshippers</i> more than forty times, of + <i>tributaries</i>, about thirty five, and of servants or + domestics, about <em>ten</em>. + + </p> + <p> + If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, if Abraham + had thousands, and if they abounded under the Mosaic system, + why had their language no word that <em>meant slave</em>? That language + must be wofully poverty-stricken, which has no signs to represent the + most common and familiar objects and conditions. To represent by + the same word, and without figure, property, and the owner of that + property, is a solecism. Ziba was an + "<i>ĕbĕdh</i>," yet he + "<i>owned</i>" (!) twenty + <i>ĕbĕdhs</i>! In our + language, we have both <i>servant</i> and + <i>slave</i>. Why? Because we have both the + <em>things</em>, and need <em>signs</em> for them. If + the tongue had a sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have + some <em>name</em> for it: but our dictionaries give us none. Why? Because + there is no such <em>thing</em>. But the objector asks, "Would not the + Israelites use their word + <i>ĕbĕdh</i> if they spoke + of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. Their <i>national</i> + servants or tributaries, are spoken of frequently, but domestics servants so + rarely, that no necessity existed, even if they were slaves, for coining a + new word. Besides, the fact of their being domestics, under <em>heathen + laws and usages</em>, proclaimed their liabilities; their + <em>locality</em> made a <em>specific</em> term unnecessary. But if + the Israelites had not only <i>servants</i>, but a + multitude of <i>slaves</i>, a <em>word meaning + slave</em>, would have been indispensible for every day convenience. + Further, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on the + outposts to warn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, + was quarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse in + usages between the without and the within. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_Lev25_44_buy"></a> + 2. "BUY." The <em>buying</em> of servants, is discussed at length. + pp. <a href="#E4r4_17" class="ref">17</a>-<a href="#E4r4_23" class="ref">23</a>. + To that discussion the reader is referred. We will add in this place + + but a single consideration. This regulation requiring the Israelites to + <i>"buy"</i> servants of the heathen, prohibited their + taking them without buying. <i>Buying</i> supposes two + parties: a <i>price</i> demanded by one and + paid by the other, and consequently, the <em>consent</em> of both buyer + and seller, to the transaction. Of course the command to the Israelites to + <i>buy</i> servants of the heathen, prohibited their + getting them unless they first got <em>somebody's</em> consent to the + transaction, and paid to <em>somebody</em> a fair equivalent. Now, who + were these <em>somebodies</em>? This at least is plain, they were not + <i>Israelites</i>, but heathen. "Of <em>them</em> + shall ye buy." Who then were these <em>somebodies</em>, whose right was + so paramount, that <em>their</em> consent must be got and the price paid + must go into <em>their</em> pockets? Were they the persons themselves who + became servants, or some <em>other</em> persons. "Some <em>other</em> + persons to be sure," says the objector, "the countrymen or the neighbors of + those who become servants." Ah! this then is the import of the Divine command + to the Israelites. + + </p> + <p> + "When you go among the heathen round about to get a man to work + for you, I straightly charge you to go first to his <em>neighbors</em>, + get <em>their</em> consent that you may have him, settle the terms with + <em>them</em>, and pay to them a fair equivalent. If it is not + <em>their</em> choice to let him go, I charge you not to take him on your + peril. If <em>they</em> consent, and you pay <em>them</em> the + full value of his labor, then you may go and catch the man and drag + him home with you, and make him work for you, and I will bless you + in the work of your hands and you shall eat of the fat of the land. As + to the man himself, his choice is nothing, and you need give him nothing + for his work: but take care and pay his <em>neighbors</em> well for him, + and respect <em>their</em> free choice in taking him, for to deprive a + heathen man by force and without pay of the <em>use of himself</em> is + well pleasing in my sight, but to deprive his heathen neighbors of the use + of him is that abominable thing which my soul hateth." + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_Lev25_44_forever"></a> + 3. "FOREVER." This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve + during their life time, and their posterity from generation to + generation.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN41"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN41"></a> No such idea is contained + in the passage. The word "forever," instead of defining the length of + <i>individual</i> service, proclaims the permanence + of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, + that their <i>permanent domestics</i> should be of the + <i>Strangers</i>, and not of the Israelites; it declares + the duration of that general provision. As if God had said, "You shall + <em>always</em> get your <i>permanent</i> laborers + from the nations round about you; your servants shall <em>always</em> be + of that + + class of persons." As it stands in the original, it is + plain—"<em>Forever of them shall ye serve yourselves</em>." This is + the literal rendering. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN41"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN41">A</a>: One would think that the explicit + testimony of our Lord should for ever forestall all cavil on this point. + "<em>The servant abideth not in the house</em> FOR EVER, + but the Son, abideth ever." John viii. 35. + </p> + <p> + That "<em>forever</em>" refers to the permanent relations of a + <i>community</i>, rather than to the services of + <i>individuals</i>, is a fair inference from the + form of the expression, "Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the + <i>heathen</i>. OF THEM shall ye buy." "They shall be + your possession." "THEY shall be your bondmen forever." "But over your + brethren the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL," &c. To say nothing of the uncertainty + of <em>these individuals</em> surviving those <em>after</em> whom + they are to live, the language used applies more naturally to a + <i>body</i> of people, than to + <i>individual</i> servants. Besides + <i>perpetual</i> service cannot be argued from the term + <i>forever</i>. The ninth and tenth verses of the same + chapter limit it absolutely by the jubilee. "Then thou shalt cause the trumpet + of the jubilee to sound * * throughout ALL your land." "And ye shall + proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL the inhabitants thereof." + It may be objected that "inhabitants" here means + <i>Israelitish</i> inhabitants + alone. The command is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all + the land unto ALL <em>the inhabitants thereof</em>." Besides, in the sixth + verse, there is an enumeration of the different classes of the inhabitants, in + which servants and Strangers are included; and in all the regulations + of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year, the Strangers are included in the + precepts, prohibitions, and promises. Again: the year of jubilee was + ushered in by the day of atonement. What did these institutions show + forth? The day of atonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and + the year of jubilee, the gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement + and a jubilee to <em>Jews</em> only? Were they types of sins remitted, + and of salvation proclaimed to the nation of Israel + alone? Is there no redemption for us Gentiles in these ends of the earth, and + is our hope presumption and impiety? Did that old partition wall survive the + shock that made earth quake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and + rent the temple veil? and did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder + direr perdition from its frowning battlements on all without? No! + The God of OUR salvation lives. "Good tidings of great joy shall be to + ALL people." One shout shall swell from all the ransomed, "Thou + hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood out of EVERY kindred, and + tongue, and people, and nation." + + </p> + <p> + To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the servants from + the <i>Gentiles</i>, makes Christianity + <i>Judaism</i>.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN42"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN42"></a> It not only eclipses the + + glory of the Gospel, but strikes out its sun. The refusal to release + servants at the jubilee falsified and disannulled a grand leading type of + the atonement, and was a libel on the doctrine of Christ's redemption. + But even if <em>forever</em> did refer to + <i>individual</i> service, we have ample precedents + for limiting the term by the jubilee. The same word defines + the length of time which <i>Jewish</i> servants served who + did not go out at the end of their six years' term. And all admit that they + went out at the jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17. The 23d verse of the + same chapter is quoted to prove that "<em>forever</em>" in the 46th verse + extends beyond the jubilee. "The land shall not be sold FOREVER, for + the land is mine"—since it would hardly be used in different senses in + the same general connection. As <i>forever</i>, in the + 46th verse, respects the <em>general arrangement</em>, and not + <i>individual service</i> the objection does + not touch the argument. Besides, in the 46th verse, the word used is + <i>Olam</i>, meaning + <i>throughout the period</i>, whatever that may be. + Whereas in the 23d verse, it is + <i>Tsemithuth</i>, meaning, a + <i>cutting off</i>, or <i>to be cut + off</i>; and the import of it is, that the owner of an inheritance shall + not forfeit his <i>proprietorship</i> of it; though it + may for a time pass from his control into the hands of his creditors or + others, yet the owner shall be permitted to <i>redeem</i> + it, and even if that be not done, it shall not be "<i>cut + off</i>," but shall revert to him at the jubilee. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN42"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN42">A</a>: So far from the + Strangers not being released by the proclamation of liberty on the morning of + the jubilee, they were the only persons who were, as a body, released by it. + The rule regulating the service of Hebrew servants was, "Six + years shall he serve, and in the seventh year he shall go out free." The + <i>free holders</i> who had "fallen into decay," and had + in consequence mortgaged their inheritances to their more prosperous + neighbors, and become in some sort their servants, were released by the + jubilee, and again resumed their inheritances. This was the only class of + Jewish servants (and it could not have been numerous,) which was released by + the jubilee; all others went out at the close of their six years' + term. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_Lev25_44_inherit"></a> + 3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." "Ye shall take them as an + INHERITANCE for your children after you to inherit them for a POSSESSION. + This, as has been already remarked refers to the <em>nations</em>, and + not to the <em>individual</em> servants procured from the senations. The + holding of servants as a <i>possession</i> is discussed + at large pp. <a href="#E4r4_47" class="ref">47</a>-<a href="#E4r4_64" class="ref">64</a>. To + what is there advanced we here subjoin a few brief considerations. We + have already shown, that servants could not he held as a + <i>property</i> possession, and inheritance; that they + became such of their <em>own accord</em>, were paid wages, released from + their regular labor nearly <em>half the days in each year</em>, + thoroughly <em>instructed</em> and <em>protected</em> in all their + personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their masters. All + remaining, after these ample reservations, would be small temptation, either + to the + + lust of power or of lucre; a profitable "possession" and "inheritance," + truly! What if our American slaves were all placed in <em>just such a + condition</em>! Alas, for that soft, melodious circumlocution, "OUR PECULIAR + species of property!" Verily, emphasis would be cadence, and + euphony and irony meet together! What eager snatches at mere + words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection, principles of + construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by other + passages—and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing usages, + thus making God pander for lust. The words + <i>nahal</i> + and <i>nahala</i>, inherit and + inheritance, by no means necessarily signify + <i>articles of property</i>. "The people + answered the king and said, "we have none + <i>inheritance</i> in the son + of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean gravely to disclaim the + holding of their king as an article of <i>property</i>? + "Children are an <i>heritage</i> + (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps. cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, + and take us for thine <i>inheritance</i>." Ex. xxxiv. 9. + When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children, does he make them + <i>articles of property</i>? Are forgiveness, and + chattel-making, synonymes? "<em>I</em> am their + <i>inheritance</i>." Ezek. xliv. 28. "I shall give thee + the heathen for thine <i>inheritance</i>." Ps. ii. 18. + See also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; + Prov. xiv. 18. + + </p> + <p> + The question whether the servants were a + PROPERTY-"<i>possession</i>," has been already discussed, + pp. <a href="#E4r4_47" class="ref">47</a>-<a href="#E4r4_64" class="ref">64</a>, we need add in + this place but a word. As an illustration of the condition of servants from + the heathen that were the "possession" of Israelitish families, and of the + way in which they became servants, the reader is referred to Isa. xiv. + 1, 2. "For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose + Israel, and set them in their own land; and the strangers will be + <em>joined</em> with them, and <em>they shall CLEAVE to the house of + Jacob</em>. And the people shall take them and bring them to their place, + and the house of Israel shall <i>possess</i> them in the + land of the Lord for servants and handmaids; and they shall take them + captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over the oppressors." + + </p> + <p> + We learn from these verses, 1st. That these servants which were to + be "<i>possessed</i>" by the Israelites, were to be + "joined with them," i.e., become proselytes to their religion. 2d. That they + should "CLEAVE to the house of Jacob," i.e., that they would forsake their + own people voluntarily, attach themselves to the Israelites as servants, and + of their own free choice leave home and friends, to accompany them on their + return, and to take up their permanent abode with them, in the same + manner that Ruth accompanied Naomi from Moab to the land of Israel, + and that the "souls gotten" by Abraham in Padanaram, accompanied him + + when he left it and went to Canaan. "And the house of Israel shall + <i>possess</i> them for servants," i.e. shall + <em>have</em> them for servants. + + </p> + <p> + In the passage under consideration, "they shall be your + <i>possession</i>," the original word translated + "possession" is <i>ahuzza</i>. The same + word is used in Gen. xlvii. 11. "And Joseph placed his father and his + brethren, and gave them a <i>possession</i> in the land + of Egypt." Gen. xlvii. 11. In what sense was Goshen the + <i>possession</i> of the Israelites? Answer, + in the sense of <em>having it to live in</em>, not in the sense of having + it as <i>owners</i>. In what sense were the Israelites to + <i>possess</i> these nations, and <em>take them</em> + as an <em>inheritance for their children</em>? Answer, they possessed + them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. + And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity + as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a descent + by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given + thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of + the nations that are round about you, of <em>them</em> shall ye buy male + and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do + sojourn among you, of <em>them</em> shall ye buy, and of their families + that are with you, which they begat in your land, and <em>they</em> shall + be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a + <em>perpetual</em> source of supply to whom your children after you shall + resort for servants. ALWAYS, <em>of them</em> shall ye serve yourselves." + The design of the passage is manifest from its structure. So far from being a + permission to purchase slaves, it was a prohibition to employ Israelites for + a certain term and in a certain grade of service, and to point out the + <em>class</em> of persons from which they were to get their supply of + servants, and the <em>way</em> in which they were to get + them.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN43"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN43"></a></p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN43"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN43">A</a>: Rabbi Leeser, who translated from the German + the work entitled "Instruction in the Mosaic Religion" by Professor Jholson + of the Jewish seminary at Frankfort-on-the-Main, in his comment on these + verses, says, "It must be observed that it was prohibited to SUBJECT + <em>a Stranger to slavery</em>. The <em>buying</em> of + slaves <em>alone</em> is permitted, but not stealing them." + + + </p> + <p> + Now whatever we call that condition in which servants were, whether servitude + or slavery, and whatever we call the persons in that condition, whether + servants or <i>slaves</i>, we have at all events, the + testimony that the Israelites were prohibited to <em>subject</em> a + Stranger to that condition, or in other words, the free choice of the servant + was not to be compelled. + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_Lev25_39"></a> + OBJECTION IV. "If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, + and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a BOND-SERVANT + but as an HIRED-SERVANT, and as a sojourner shall he be + with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee." + Lev. xxv. 39, 40. + + </h3> + <p><a name="E4r4_Lev25_39_diff"></a> + As only <em>one</em> class is called "<i>hired</i>," + it is inferred that servants of the other class were <em>not paid</em> + for their labor. That God, while thundering anathemas against those who "used + their neighbor's service without wages," granted a special indulgence to his + chosen people to force others to work, and rob them of earnings, provided + always, in selecting their victims, they spared "the gentlemen of property + and standing," and pounced only upon the strangers and the common + people. The inference that "<i>hired</i>" is synonymous + with <i>paid</i>, and that those servants not + <em>called</em> "hired," were <em>not paid</em> for their labor, is + a mere assumption. The meaning of the English verb to + <i>hire</i>, is to procure for a + <i>temporary</i> use at a certain price—to engage + a person to temporary service for wages. That is also the meaning of the + Hebrew word "<i>saukar</i>." It is not + used when the procurement of <i>permanent</i> + service is spoken of. Now, we ask, would <i>permanent</i> + servants, those who constituted a stationary part of the family, + have been designated by the same term that marks + <i>temporary</i> servants? + The every-day distinctions in this matter, are familiar + as table-talk. In many families the domestics perform only the + <em>regular</em> work. Whatever is occasional merely, as the washing of a + family, is done by persons hired expressly for the purpose. The familiar + distinction between the two classes, is "servants," and "hired + help," (not <i>paid</i> help.) <em>Both</em> classes + are <i>paid</i>. One is permanent, and the other + occasional and temporary, and <em>therefore</em> in this case + called "hired."<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN44"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN44"></a> A variety of particulars are + recorded distinguishing, <i>hired</i> from + <i>bought</i> servants. 1. Hired servants were paid daily + at the close of their work. Lev. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Job. vii. + 2; Matt. xx. 8. "<i>Bought</i>" servants were paid in + advance, (a reason for their being called <i>bought</i>,) + and those that went out at the seventh + + year received a <i>gratuity</i>. Deut. xv. 12, 13. + 2. The "hired" were paid <i>in money</i>, the "bought" + received their <i>gratuity</i>, at least, in + grain, cattle, and the product of the vintage. Deut. xv. 14. + 3. The "hired" <em>lived</em> in their own families, the "bought" were a + part of their masters' families. 4. The "hired" supported their families + out of their wages; the "bought" and their families were supported + by the master <em>beside</em> their wages. 5. Hired servants were expected + to work more <em>constantly</em>, and to have more <em>working + hours</em> in the day than the bought servants. This we infer from the fact, + that "a hireling's day," was a sort of proverbial phrase, meaning a + <i>full</i> day. No subtraction of time being made from + it. So <i>a hireling's year</i> signifies an + entire year without abatement. Job. vii. 1; xiv. 6; Isa. xvi. 14; xxi. 16. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN44"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN44">A</a>: To suppose a servant robbed of his + earnings because he is not called a <i>hired</i> + servant, is profound induction! If I employ a man at twelve dollars a month + to work my farm, he is my "<i>hired</i>" man, but if + <em>I give him such a portion of the crop</em>, or in other words, if he + works my farm "<i>on shares</i>," every + farmer knows that he is no longer called a "<i>hired</i>" + man. Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at the same times, and with + the same teams and tools; and does the same amount of work in the year, and + perhaps clears twenty dollars a month, instead of twelve. Now as he is no + longer called "hired," and as he still works my farm, suppose my neighbors + sagely infer, that since he is not my "<i>hired</i>" + laborer, I <em>rob</em> him of his earnings, and with all the gravity of + owls, pronounce their oracular decision, and hoot it abroad. My neighbors are + deep divers! like some theological professors, they go not only to the bottom + but come up covered with the tokens. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_Lev25_39_bgtfav"></a> + The "bought" servants, were, <em>as a class, superior to the + hired</em>—were more trust-worthy, were held in higher estimation, + had greater privileges, and occupied a more elevated station in society. 1. + They were intimately incorporated with the family of the master, + were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which + hired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10, 11; Ex. xii. 43, 45. + 2. Their interests were far more identified with those of their masters' + family. They were often, actually or prospectively, heirs of their masters' + estates, as in the case of Eliezer, of Ziba, and the sons of + Bilhah, and Zilpah. When there were no sons, or when they were + unworthy, bought servants were made heirs. Prov. xvii. 2. We + find traces of this usage in the New Testament. "But when the + husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves saying, this + is the <em>heir</em>, come let us kill him, <em>that the inheritance + may be ours</em>." Luke xx. 14. In no instance does a + <i>hired</i> servant inherit his master's + estate. 3. Marriages took place between servants and their + master's daughters. "Sheshan had a <i>servant</i>, an + Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his + servant to wife." 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35. There is no instance of a + <i>hired</i> servant forming such an alliance. 4. Bought + servants and their descendants were treated with the same affection and + respect as the other members of the family.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN45"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN45"></a> The treatment of Abraham's servants. + Gen. xxiv. and xviii. 1-7; the intercourse between Gideon and Phurah + + Judg. vii. 10, 11; Saul and his servant, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22; Jonathan + and his servant, 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and Gehazi are + illustrations. The tenderness exercised towards home-born servants + or the children of <i>handmaids</i>, and the strength of + the tie that bound them to the family, are employed by the Psalmist to + illustrate the regard of God for him, his care over him, and his own endearing + relation to him, when in the last extremity he prays, "Save the son of thy + <i>handmaid</i>." Ps. lxxxvi. 16. So also in Ps. cxvi. 16. + Oh Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thy + <i>handmaid</i>. Also, Jer. ii. 14. Is Israel a servant? + Is he a <i>home-born</i>?<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN46"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN46"></a> WHY IS HE SPOILED? No such tie seems to have existed + between <i>hired</i> servants and their masters. Their + untrustworthiness was proverbial. John x. 12, 13. They were reckoned at but + half the value of bought servants. Deut. xv. 18. None but the + <em>lowest class</em> of the people engaged + as hired servants, and the kinds of labor assigned to them required + little knowledge and skill. No persons seem to have become + hired servants except such as were forced to it from extreme poverty. + The hired servant is called "poor and needy," and the reason assigned + by God why he should be paid as soon as he had finished his work + is, "For <em>he is poor</em>, and setteth his heart upon it." + Deut. xxiv. 14, 15. See also, 1 Sam. ii. 5. Various passages show the low + repute and trifling character of the class from which they were hired. + Judg. ix. 4; 1 Sam. ii. 5. The superior condition of bought servants is + manifest in the high trust confided to them, and in their dignity and + authority in the household. In no instance is a + <i>hired</i> servant thus distinguished. + The <i>bought</i> servant is manifestly the master's + representative in the family, sometimes with plenipotentiary powers over adult + children, even negotiating marriage for them. Abraham adjured his servant, + not to take a wife for Isaac of the daughters of the Canaanites. The + servant himself selected the individual. Servants exercised discretionary + power in the management of their masters' estates, "And the servant + took ten camels of the camels of his master, <em>for all the goods of his + master were in his hand</em>." Gen. xxiv. 10. The reason assigned + is not that such was Abraham's direction, but that the servant + had discretionary control. Servants had also discretionary power + + in the <em>disposal of property</em>. Gen. xxiv. 22, 30, 53. The condition + of Ziba in the house of Mephibosheth, is a case in point. So is Prov. + xvii. 2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to be found in the New + Testament, Matt. xxiv. 45; Luke xii. 42, 44. So in the parable of + the talents, the master seems to have set up each of his servants in + trade with a large capital. The unjust steward had large + <em>discretionary</em> power, was "accused of wasting his master's + goods," and manifestly regulated with his debtors the <em>terms</em> + of settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8. Such trusts were never reposed in + <i>hired</i> servants. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN45"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN45">A</a>: "For the + <i>purchased servant</i> who is an Israelite, or + proselyte, shall fare as his master. The master shall not eat fine bread, + and his servant bread of bran. Nor yet drink old wine, and give his servant + new: nor sleep on soft pillows, and bedding, and his servant on straw. I + say unto you, that he that gets a <i>purchased</i> + servant does well to make him as his friend, or he will prove to his employer + as if he got himself a master."—Maimonides, in Mishna Kiddushim. + Chap. 1, Sec. 2. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN46"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN46">B</a>: Our + translators in rendering it "Is he a home-born SLAVE," were wise beyond what + is written. + </p> + <p> + The inferior condition of <i>hired</i> servants, is + illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son. When he came to himself, the + memory of his home, and of the abundance enjoyed by even the + <em>lowest</em> class of servants in his father's household, while he was + perishing with hunger among the swine and husks, so filled him with anguish + at the contrast, that he exclaimed, "How many <i>hired</i> + servants of my father, have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with + hunger." His proud heart broke. "I will arise," he cried, "and go to my + father;" and then to assure his father of the depth of his humility, resolved + to add; "Make me as one of thy <i>hired</i> servants." + If <i>hired</i> servants were the <em>superior</em> + class—to bespeak the situation, savored little of that sense of + unworthiness that seeks the dust with hidden face, and cries "unclean." + Unhumbled nature <em>climbs</em>; or if it falls, clings fast, where first + it may. Humility sinks of its own weight, and in the lowest deep, digs lower. + The design of the parable was to illustrate on the one hand, the joy of + God, as he beholds afar off, the returning sinner "seeking an injured + father's face," who runs to clasp and bless him with an unchiding welcome; + and on the other, the contrition of the penitent, turning homeward + with tears from his wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with + its ill-desert he sobs aloud, "The lowest place, <em>the lowest + place</em>, I can abide no other." Or in those inimitable words, "Father I + have sinned against Heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be + called thy son; make me as one of thy HIRED servants." The supposition + that <i>hired</i> servants were the <em>highest</em> + class, takes from the parable an element of winning beauty and pathos. + + </p> + <p> + It is manifest to every careful student of the Bible, that <em>one</em> + class of servants, was on terms of equality with the children and other + members of the family. Hence the force of Paul's declaration, Gal. iv. 1, "Now + I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING + FROM A SERVANT, though he be lord of all." If this were the + <i>hired</i> class, the prodigal was a sorry specimen of + humility. Would our Lord have put such language upon the lips of one held up + by himself, + + as a model of gospel humility, to illustrate its deep sense of all ill-desert? + If this is <em>humility</em>, put it on stilts, and set it a strutting, + while pride takes lessons, and blunders in aping it. + + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_Lev25_39_both"></a> + Israelites and Strangers belonged indiscriminately to <em>each</em> class + of the servants, the <i>bought</i> and the + <i>hired</i>. That those in the former class, + whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the family + circle, which were not conferred on <i>hired</i> servants, + has been shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of + privileges, merely <i>political</i>, the hired servants + from the <i>Israelites</i>, were more favored than + even the bought servants from the <i>Strangers</i>. No + one from the Strangers, however wealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to + the highest office, nor could he own the soil. This last disability seems to + have been one reason for the different periods of service required of the two + classes of bought servants. The Israelite was to serve six years—the + Stranger until the jubilee. As the Strangers could not own the + soil, nor houses, except within walled towns, they would naturally attach + themselves to Israelitish families. <a name="E4r4_Lev25_39_Isrserv"></a>Those + who were wealthy, or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants + would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for the Strangers to + become servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their own + nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would naturally + procure the poorer Israelites for servants. Lev. xxv. 47. In a word, + such was the political condition of the Strangers, that the Jewish polity + offered a virtual bounty, to such as would become permanent servants, + and thus secure those privileges already enumerated, and for their + children in the second generation a permanent inheritance. Ezek. + xlvii. 21-23. None but the monied aristocracy would be likely to + decline such offers. On the other hand, the Israelites, owning all the + soil, and an inheritance of land being a sacred possession, to hold it + free of incumbrance was with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of + family honor and personal character. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to + forego the control of one's inheritance, after the division of the paternal + domain, or to be kept out of it after having acceded to it, was a + burden grievous to be borne. + <a name="E4r4_Lev25_39_reas7yr"></a>To mitigate as much as possible such a + calamity, the law released the Israelitish servant at the end of + six<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN47"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN47"></a> + years; as, during that time—if of the first class—the partition of + the patrimonial land might have taken place or, if of the second, enough + money might have been earned to disencumber his estate, and thus he + might assume his station as a lord of the soil. If neither contingency + had occurred, then after another six years the opportunity was again + offered, and so on, until the jubilee. <a name="E4r4_Lev25_39_lngreas"></a>So + while strong motives urged the Israelite to discontinue his service as soon as + the exigency had passed which made him a servant, every consideration impelled + the <i>Stranger</i> to <em>prolong</em> his term of + service;<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN48"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN48"></a> and the same kindness which + dictated the law of six years' service for the Israelite, assigned as the + general rule, a much longer period to the Gentile servant, who had + every inducement to protract the term. It should be borne in mind, + that adult Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporary expedient + to relieve themselves from embarrassment, and ceased to be + such when that object was effected. The poverty that forced them to + it was a calamity, and their service was either a means of relief, or a + measure of prevention; not pursued as a permanent business, but resorted + to on emergencies—a sort of episode in the main scope of their + lives. Whereas with the Stranger, it was a + <i>permanent employment</i>, + pursued both as a <em>means</em> of bettering their own condition, and + that of their posterity, and as an <em>end</em> for its own sake, + conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not otherwise + attainable. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN47"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN47">A</a>: Another reason for protracting the service until + the seventh year, seems to have been the coincidence of that period with other + arrangements, in the Jewish economy. Its pecuniary responsibilities, social + relations, and general internal structure, were <em>graduated</em> upon a + septennial scale. Besides, as those Israelites who had become servants through + poverty, would not sell themselves, till other expedients to recruit their + finances had failed—(Lev. xxv. 35)—their <em>becoming + servants</em> proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the + labor of a <em>course of years</em> fully to reinstate them. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN48"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN48">B</a>: The Stranger had the same inducements to + prefer a long term of service that those have who cannot own land, to prefer + a long <em>lease</em>. + </p> + <p><a name="E4r4_Lev25_39_thereas"></a> + We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the + heathen, are called by way of distinction, <em>the</em> servants, (not + <i>bondmen</i>,) 1. They followed it as a + <i>permanent business</i>. 2. Their term of service was + <em>much longer</em> than that of the other class. 3. As a + class, they doubtless greatly outnumbered the Israelitish servants. 4. All + the Strangers that dwelt in the land were + <i>tributaries</i>, required to pay an annual + tax to the government, either in money, or in public service, + (called a <i>"tribute of bond-service;"</i>) in other + words, all the Strangers were <i>national servants</i>, + to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word used to designate + <i>individual</i> servants, equally designates + <i>national</i> servants + or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14; 2 Chron. viii. 7-9; + Deut, xx. 11; 2 Sam. x. 19; 1 Kings ix. 21, 22; 1 Kings iv. 21; + Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, when they + + paid tribute to other nations. 2 Kings xvii. 3.; Judg. iii. 8, 14; Gen. + xlix. 15. <a name="E4r4_Lev25_39_dsrv"></a>Another distinction between the + Jewish and Gentile bought + servants, was in their <em>kinds</em> of service. The servants from the + Strangers were properly the <i>domestics</i>, or household + servants, employed in all family work, in offices of personal attendance, and + in such mechanical labor, as was required by increasing wants and needed + repairs. The Jewish bought servants seem almost exclusively + <i>agricultural</i>. Besides + being better fitted for it by previous habits, agriculture, and the tending + of cattle, were regarded by the Israelites as the most honorable of + all occupations. After Saul was elected king, and escorted to Gibeah, + the next report of him is, "<em>And behold Saul came after the herd out of + the field</em>." 1 Sam. xi. 5. Elisha "was plowing with twelve yoke of + oxen." 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah "loved husbandry." 2 Chron. + xxvi. 10. Gideon <em>was "threshing wheat"</em> when called to lead the + host against the Midianites. Judg. vi. 11. The superior honorableness + of agriculture is shown, in that it was protected and supported by the + fundamental law of the theocracy—God indicating it as the chief prop + of the government. The Israelites were like permanent fixtures on + their soil, so did they cling to it. To be agriculturists on their own + patrimonial inheritances, was with them the grand claim to honorable + estimation. When Ahab proposed to Naboth that he should sell him + his vineyard, king though he was, he might well have anticipated from + an Israelitish freeholder, just such an indignant burst as that which his + proposal drew forth, "And Naboth said to Ahab, the Lord forbid it me + that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee." 1 Kings + xxi. 2, 3. Agriculture being pre-eminently a <i>Jewish</i> + employment, to assign a native Israelite to other employments as a business, + was to break up his habits, do violence to cherished predilections, and put + him to a kind of labor in which he had no skill, and which he deemed + degrading.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN49"><sup>C</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN49"></a> In short, it was in the earlier ages of the Mosaic system, + practically to <i>unjew</i> him, a hardship and a rigor + grievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between the + descendants of Abraham and the Strangers. <em>To guard this and another + fundamental distinction</em>, God instituted the regulation, "If thy brother + that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not + compel him to serve as a bond-servant." In other words, thou shalt not put + him to + + servant's work—to the business, and into the condition of domestics. + In the Persian version it is translated, "Thou shalt not assign + to him the work of <i>servitude</i>." In the Septuagint, + "He shall not serve thee with the service of a + <i>domestic</i>." In the Syriac, "Thou shalt not employ + him after the manner of servants." In the Samaritan, "Thou shalt not + require him to serve in the service of a servant." In the Targum of Onkelos, + "He shall not serve thee with the service of a household servant." In the + Targum of Jonathan, "Thou shalt not cause him to serve according to the usages + of the servitude of servants."<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN50"><sup>D</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN50"></a> The + meaning of the passage is, <em>thou shalt not assign him to the same grade, + nor put him to the same service, with permanent domestics.</em> The + remainder of the regulation is—<em>"But as an hired servant and as a + sojourner shall he be with thee."</em> Hired servants were not incorporated + into the families of their masters; they still retained their own family + organization, without the surrender of any domestic privilege, honor, or + authority; and this, even though they resided under the same roof with their + master. The same substantially may be said of the sojourner though he was not + the owner of the land which he cultivated, and of course had not the + control of an inheritance, yet he was not in a condition that implied + subjection to him whose land he tilled, or that demanded the surrender of + any <em>right</em>, or exacted from him any homage, or stamped him with + any inferiority; unless, it be supposed that a degree of inferiority would + naturally attach to a state of <em>dependence</em> however + qualified. While bought servants were associated with their master's families + at meals, at the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired servants + and sojourners were not. Ex. xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11. Hired + servants were not subject to the authority of their masters in any such + sense as the master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence + the only form of oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures + as practicable to masters, is that of <em>keeping back their wages.</em> + To have taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, + would have been pre-eminent "<em>rigor</em>;" for it was not a servant + born in + + the house of a master, nor a minor, whose minority had been sold by + the father, neither was it one who had not yet acceded to his inheritance, + nor finally, one who had received the <i>assignment</i> + of his inheritance, but was working off from it an incumbrance, before + entering upon its possession and control. But it was that of + <em>the head of a family</em>, who had known better days, now reduced to + poverty, forced to relinquish the loved inheritance of his fathers, with the + competence and respectful consideration its possession secured to him, and + to be indebted to a neighbor for shelter, sustenance, and employment. + So sad a reverse, might well claim sympathy; but one consolation + cheers him in the house of his pilgrimage; he is an + <em>Israelite—Abraham is his father</em> and now in his calamity + he clings closer than ever, to the distinction conferred by his birth-right. + To rob him of this, were "the unkindest cut of all." To have assigned him to + a grade of service filled only by those whose permanent business was serving, + would have been to "rule over him with" peculiar "rigor." "Thou + shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," or literally, <em>thou + shalt not serve thyself with him, with the service of a servant</em>, + guaranties his political privileges, and a kind and grade of service + comporting with his character and relations as an Israelite. And "as a + <i>hired</i> servant, and as a sojourner shall he be with + thee," secures to him his family organization, the respect and authority due + to its head, and the general consideration resulting from such a station. + Being already in possession of his inheritance, and the head of a household, + the law so arranged the conditions of his service as to <em>alleviate</em> + as much as possible the calamity which had reduced him from independence and + authority, to penury and subjection. The import of the command + which concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, ("Thou shalt not + rule over him with rigor,") is manifestly this, you shall not disregard + those differences in previous associations, station, authority, and + political privileges, upon which this regulation is based; for to hold + this class of servants <em>irrespective</em> of these distinctions, and + annihilating them, is to "rule with rigor." The same command is repeated in + the forty-sixth verse, and applied to the distinction between servants of + Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction, and forbids the overlooking + of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, the disregard of which would be + <em>rigorous</em> in the extreme.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN51"><sup>E</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN51"></a> The construction commonly put upon the + + phrase "rule with rigor," and the inference drawn from it, have an air + vastly oracular. It is interpreted to mean, "you shall not make him + a chattel, and strip him of legal protection, nor force him to work + without pay." The inference is like unto it, viz., since the command + forbade such outrages upon the Israelites, it permitted and commissioned + their infliction upon the Strangers. Such impious and + shallow smattering captivates scoffers and libertines; its flippancy and + blasphemy, and the strong scent of its loose-reined license works + like a charm upon them. What boots it to reason against such rampant + affinities! In Ex. i. 13, it is said that the Egyptians, "made the + children of Israel to <em>serve</em> with rigor." This rigor is affirmed + of the <em>amount of labor</em> extorted and the <em>mode</em> of the + exaction. The expression "serve with rigor," is never applied to the service + of servants under the Mosaic system. The phrase, "thou shall not RULE over + him with rigor," does not prohibit unreasonable exactions of labor, + nor inflictions of cruelty. Such were provided against otherwise. + But it forbids confounding the distinctions between a Jew and a + Stranger, by assigning the former to the same grade of service, + for the same term of time and under the same political disabilities as + the latter. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN49"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN49">C</a>: The Babylonish captivity seems to have + greatly modified Jewish usage in this respect. Before that event, their cities + were comparatively small, and few were engaged in mechanical or mercantile + employments. Afterward their cities enlarged apace and trades + multiplied. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN50"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN50">D</a>: Jarchi's comment + on "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant" + is, "The Hebrew servant is not to be required to do any thing which is + accounted degrading—such as all offices of personal attendance, as + loosing his master's shoe-latchet, bringing him water to wash his hands and + feet, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying things to and from the + bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with his master as a son or brother, in + the business of his farm, or other labor, until his legal release." + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN51"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN51">E</a>: The + disabilities of the Strangers, which were distinctions, based on a different + national descent, and important to the preservation of nation characteristics, + and a national worship, did not at all affect their <em>social</em> + estimation. They were regarded according to their character and worth as + <em>persons</em>, irrespective of their foreign origin, employments and + political condition. + </p> + </div> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h2><a name="E4r4_review"></a></h2> + <p> + We are now prepared to review at a glance, the condition of the different + classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each. + + </p> + <p> + In the possession of all fundamental rights, all classes of servants + were on an absolute equality, all were equally protected by law in + their persons, character, property and social relations; all were + voluntary, all were compensated for their labor, and released from it + nearly one half of the days in each year; all were furnished with + stated instruction; none in either class were in any sense articles of + property, all were regarded as <em>men</em>, with the rights, interests, + hopes and destinies of <em>men</em>. In all these respects, + <em>all</em> classes of servants among the Israelites, formed but ONE + CLASS. The <em>different</em> classes, and the differences in + <em>each</em> class, were, 1. <i>Hired Servants</i>. + This class consisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were + different. The <i>Israelite</i> was an agricultural + servant. The Stranger was a <i>domestic</i> and + <i>personal</i> servant, and in some instances + <i>mechanical</i>; both were occasional and temporary. + Both lived in their own families, their wages were + <i>money</i>, and they were paid when their work + was done. 2. <i>Bought Servants</i>, (including those + "born in the house.") This class also, consisted of Israelites and Strangers, + the same difference in their kinds of employment as noticed before. Both were + + paid in advance,<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN52"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN52"></a> and + neither was temporary. The Israelitish servant, with the exception of the + <i>freeholder</i>, completed his term in six years. + The Stranger was a permanent servant, continuing until the jubilee. + A marked distinction obtained also between different classes of + <i>Jewish</i> bought servants. Ordinarily, they were + merged in their master's family, and, like his wife and children, subject to + his authority; (and, like them, protected by law from its abuse.) But the + <i>freeholder</i> was an exception; his family relations + and authority remained unaffected, nor was he subjected as an inferior to the + control of his master, though dependent on him for employment. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN52"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN52">A</a>: The payment <em>in + advance</em>, doubtless lessened the price of the purchase; the + servant thus having the use of the money, and the master assuming all the + risks of life, and health for labor; at the expiration of the six years' + contract, the master having suffered no loss from the risk incurred at the + making of it, was obliged by law to release the servant with a liberal + gratuity. The reason assigned for this is, "he hath been worth a double hired + servant unto thee in serving thee six years," as if it had been said, as you + have experienced no loss from the risks of life, and ability to labor, + incurred in the purchase, and which lessened the price, and as, by being your + servant for six years, he has saved you the time and trouble of looking up and + hiring laborers on emergencies, therefore, "thou shalt furnish him liberally," + &c. + + </p> + <p> + This gratuity at the close of the service shews the + <i>principle</i> of the relation; + <i>equivalent</i> for value received. + </p> + <p> + It should be kept in mind, that <em>both</em> classes of servants, the + Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed <em>equal, natural and + religious rights</em>, but <em>all the civil and political + privileges</em> enjoyed by those of their own people who were + <em>not</em> servants. <a name="E4r4_review_pol"></a>They also shared in + common with them the political disabilities which appertained to all + Strangers, whether servants of Jewish masters, or masters of Jewish servants. + Further, the disabilities of the servants from the Strangers were exclusively + <i>political</i> and <i>national</i>. + 1. They, in common with all Strangers, could not own the soil. 2. They were + ineligible to civil offices. 3. They were assigned to employments less + honorable than those in which Israelitish servants engaged; agriculture being + regarded as fundamental to the existence of the state, other employments were + in less repute, and deemed <i>unjewish</i>. + + </p> + <p> + Finally, the Strangers, whether servants or masters, were all protected + equally with the descendants of Abraham. In respect to political + privileges, their condition was much like that of unnaturalized + foreigners in the United States; whatever their wealth or intelligence, + or moral principle, or love for our institutions, they can neither go to + + the ballot-box, nor own the soil, nor be eligible to office. Let a native + American, be suddenly bereft of these privileges, and loaded with the + disabilities of an alien, and what to the foreigner would be a light matter, + to <em>him</em>, would be the severity of <em>rigor</em>. The recent + condition of the Jews and Catholics in England, is another illustration. + Rothschild, the late banker, though the richest private citizen in the world, + and perhaps master of scores of English servants, who sued for the + smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the government, inferior + to the lowest among them. Suppose an Englishman of the + Established Church, were by law deprived of power to own the soil, + of eligibility to office and of the electoral franchise, would Englishmen + think it a misapplication of language, if it were said, the government + "rules over him with rigor?" And yet his person, property, reputation, + conscience, all his social relations, the disposal of his time, the + right of locomotion at pleasure, and of natural liberty in all respects, + are just as much protected by law as the Lord Chancellor's. + + </p> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_Ex21_2"></a></h3> + <p> + FINALLY.—As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, rife + with meaning in doctrine and duty; the practical power of the whole, + depended upon the exact observance of those distinctions and relations + which constituted its significancy. Hence, the care to preserve inviolate + the distinction between a <i>descendant of Abraham</i> + and a <i>Stranger</i>, even when the Stranger was a + proselyte, had gone through the initiatory ordinances, entered the + congregation, and become incorporated with the Israelites by family alliance. + The regulation laid down in Ex. xxi. 2-6, is an illustration. In this case, + the Israelitish servant, whose term expired in six years, married one of his + master's <i>permanent female domestics</i>; but her + marriage did not release her master from <em>his</em> part of the contract + for her whole term of service, nor from his legal obligation to support and + educate her children. Neither did it do away that distinction, which marked + her national descent by a specific <i>grade</i> and + <i>term</i> of service, nor impair her obligation to + fulfil <em>her</em> part of the contract. Her relations as a permanent + domestic grew out of a distinction guarded with great care throughout the + Mosaic system. To render it void, would have been to divide the system against + itself. This God would not tolerate. Nor, on the other hand, would + he permit the master to throw off the responsibility of instructing her + children, nor the care and expense of their helpless infancy and rearing. + He was bound to support and educate them, and all her children + born afterwards during her term of service. The whole arrangement + beautifully illustrates that wise and tender regard for the interests of + all the parties concerned, which arrays the Mosaic system in robes of + + glory, and causes it to shine as the sun in the kingdom of our + Father.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN53"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN53"></a> By this law, the children had secured to them a mother's + tender care. If the husband loved his wife and children, he could compel his + master to keep him, whether he had any occasion for his services or not. If + he did not love them, to be rid of him was a blessing; and in that case, + the regulation would prove an act for the relief of an afflicted family. + It is not by any means to be inferred, that the release of the servant + in the seventh year, either absolved him from the obligations of marriage, + or shut him out from the society of his family. He could doubtless + procure a service at no great distance from them, and might often + do it, to get higher wages, or a kind of employment better suited to his + taste and skill. The great number of days on which the law released + servants from regular labor, would enable him to spend much more + time with his family, than can be spent by most of the agents of our + benevolent societies with <em>their</em> families, or by many merchants, + editors, artists, &c., whose daily business is in New York, while their + families reside from ten to one hundred miles in the country. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN53"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN53">B</a>: Whoever profoundly studies the Mosaic + Institutes with a teachable and reverential spirit, will feel the truth and + power of that solemn appeal and interrogatory of God to his people Israel, + when he had made an end of setting before them all his statutes and + ordinances. "What nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments + SO RIGHTEOUS, as <em>all</em> this law which I set before you this day." + Deut. iv. 8. + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E4r4_uncext"></a></h3> + <p> + We conclude this inquiry by touching upon an objection, which, + though not formally stated, has been already set aside by the tenor of + the foregoing argument. It is this,—"The slavery of the Canaanites + by the Israelites, was appointed by God as a commutation of the + punishment of death denounced against them for their + sins."<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN54"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN54"></a> If the + absurdity of a sentence consigning persons to death, and at the same + time to perpetual slavery, did not sufficiently laugh at itself; it would + be small self-denial, in a case so tempting, to make up the deficiency by + a general contribution. Only <em>one</em> statute was ever given + respecting the disposition to be made of the inhabitants of Canaan. If the + sentence of death was pronounced against them, and afterwards + <i>commuted</i>, when? where? by whom? and in what terms + was the commutation, + + and where is it recorded? Grant, for argument's sake, that all the + Canaanites were sentenced to unconditional extermination; how can a + right to <em>enslave</em> them, be drawn from such premises? The + punishment of death is one of the highest recognitions of man's moral nature + possible. It proclaims him rational, accountable, guilty, deserving death + for having done his utmost to cheapen human life, when the proof of + its priceless worth lived in his own nature. But to make him a + <i>slave</i>, cheapens to nothing + <i>universal human nature</i>, and instead of healing a + wound, gives a death-stab. What! repair an injury to rational being + in the robbery of one of its rights, not only by robbing it of all, but + by annihilating their <i>foundation</i>, the everlasting + distinction between persons and things? To make a man a chattel, is not the + <em>punishment</em>, but the <em>annihilation</em> of a + <i>human</i> being, and, so far as it goes, of + <em>all</em> human beings. This commutation of the punishment of death, + into perpetual slavery, what a fortunate discovery! Alas! for the honor + of Deity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn hope, and by a + timely movement rescued the Divine character, at the very crisis of its + fate, from the perilous position in which inspiration had carelessly left + it! Here a question arises of sufficient importance for a separate + dissertation; but must for the present be disposed of in a few paragraphs. + WERE THE CANAANITES SENTENCED BY GOD TO INDIVIDUAL + AND UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION? As the limits of this inquiry + forbid our giving all the grounds of dissent from commonly received + opinions, the suggestions made, will be thrown out merely as QUERIES, + rather than laid down as <i>doctrines</i>. The directions + as to the disposal of the Canaanites, are mainly in the following passages, + Ex. xxiii. 23-33; xxxiv. 11; Deut. vii. 16-24; ix. 3; xxxi. 3-5. In these + verses, the Israelites are commanded to "destroy the Canaanites," to + "drive out," "consume," "utterly overthrow," "put out," "dispossess + them," &c. Did these commands enjoin the unconditional and universal + destruction of the <em>individuals</em>, or merely of the + <i>body politic</i>? The word + <i>hārām</i>, to destroy, + signifies <i>national</i>, as well as individual + destruction; the destruction of <i>political</i> + existence, equally with <i>personal</i>; + of governmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects. + Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., + to mean <i>personal</i> destruction, what meaning shall we + give to the expressions, "drive out before thee," "cast out before thee," + "expel," "put out," "dispossess," &c., which are used in the same and in + parallel passages? In addition to those quoted above, see Josh. iii. 10; + xvii. 18; xxiii. 5; xxiv. 18; Judg. i. 20, 29-35; vi. 9. "I will + <em>destroy</em> all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make + all + + thine enemies <em>turn their backs unto thee</em>." Ex. xxiii. 27. Here + "<em>all their enemies</em>" were to <em>turn their backs</em>, and + "<em>all the people</em>" to be "<em>destroyed</em>." Does this mean + that God would let all their <em>enemies</em> escape, but kill their + <em>friends</em>, or that he would <em>first</em> kill "all the + people" and THEN make them "turn their backs," an army of runaway corpses? + In Josh. xxiv. 8, God says, speaking of the Amorites, "I + <em>destroyed</em> them from before you." In the 18th verse of the same + chapter, it is said, "The Lord <em>drave out</em> from before us all the + people, even the Amorites which dwelt in the land." In Num. xxxii. 39, we are + told that "the children of Machir the son of Manasseh, went to Gilead, and + took it, and <em>dispossessed</em> the Amorite which was in it." If these + commands required the destruction of all the + <i>individuals,</i> the Mosaic law + was at war with itself, for directions as to the treatment of native residents + form a large part of it. See Lev. xix. 34; xxv. 35, 36; xxiv. 22.; + Ex. xxiii. 9; xxii. 21; Deut. i. 16, 17; x. 17, 19; xxvii. 19. + We find, also, that provision was made for them in the cities of refuge, + Num. xxxv. 15,—the gleanings of the harvest and vintage were theirs, + Lev. xix. 9, 10; xxiii. 22;—the blessings of the Sabbath, Ex. xx. + 10;—the privilege of offering sacrifices secured, Lev. xxii. 18; and + stated religious instruction provided for them. Deut. xxxi. 9, 12. + Now does this same law require the + <i>individual extermination</i> of those + whose lives and interests it thus protects? These laws were given to + the Israelites, long <em>before</em> they entered Canaan; and they must + have inferred from them, that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land were + to <em>continue in it</em>, under their government. Again Joshua was + selected as the leader of Israel to execute God's threatenings upon Canaan. + He had no discretionary power. God's commands were his official + instructions. Going beyond them would have been usurpation; refusing + to carry them out, rebellion and treason. Saul was rejected from + being king for disobeying God's commands in a single instance. Now if + God commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaanites Joshua + disobeyed him in every instance. For at his death, the Israelites still + "<em>dwelt among them</em>," and each nation is mentioned by name. Judg. + i. 27-36, and yet we are told that Joshua "left nothing undone of all + that the Lord commanded Moses;" and that he "took all that land." + Josh. xi. 15-22. Also, that "there <em>stood not a man</em> of + <em>all</em> their enemies + before them." Josh. xxi. 44. How can this be if the command + to destroy, destroy utterly, &c., enjoined + <i>individual</i> extermination, and + the command to drive out, unconditional expulsion from the country, rather + than their expulsion from the <i>possession</i> or + <i>ownership</i> of it, as the + lords of the soil? That the latter is the true sense to be attached to those + + terms, we argue, further from the fact that the same terms are employed + by God to describe the punishment which he would inflict upon + the Israelites if they served other Gods. "Ye shall utterly perish," + "be utterly destroyed," "consumed," &c., are some of them.—See + Deut. iv. 20; viii. 19, 20.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN55"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN55"></a> Josh. xxiii. 12, 13-16; 1. Sam. xii. + 25. The Israelites <em>did</em> serve other Gods, and Jehovah + <em>did</em> execute upon them his threatenings—and thus himself + <em>interpreted</em> these threatenings. He subverted their + <em>government</em>, dispossessed them of their land, divested them of + national power, and made them <i>tributaries</i>, but + did not <em>exterminate</em> them. He "destroyed them utterly" as an + independent body politic, but not as individuals. Multitudes of the + Canaanites were slain, but not a case can be found in which one was + either killed or expelled who <em>acquiesced</em> in the transfer of the + territory, and its sovereignty, from the inhabitants of the land to the + Israelites. Witness the case of Rahab and her kindred, and that of the + Gibeonites.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN56"><sup>C</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN56"></a> The Canaanites knew of the miracles wrought for the + + Israelites; and that their land had been transferred to them as a + judgment for their sins. Josh. ii. 9-11; ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of + them were awed by these wonders, and made no resistance. Others + defied God and came out to battle. These last occupied the fortified + cities, were the most inveterate heathen—the aristocracy of idolatry, + the kings, the nobility and gentry, the priests, with their crowds of + satellites, and retainers that aided in idolatrous rites, and the military + forces, with the chief profligates of both sexes. Many facts corroborate + the general position. Witness that command (Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,) + which, not only prohibited the surrender of the fugitive servant to his + master, but required the Israelites to receive him with kindness, permit + him to dwell where he pleased, and to protect and cherish him. + Whenever any servant, even a Canaanite, fled from his master to the + Israelites, Jehovah, so far from commanding them to <em>kill</em> him, + straitly charged them, "He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that + place which <em>he</em> shall choose—in one of thy gates where it + liketh <em>him</em> best—thou shalt not oppress him." + Deut. xxiii. 16. The Canaanitish servant by thus fleeing to the Israelites, + submitted himself as a dutiful subject to their national government, and + pledged his allegiance. Suppose <em>all</em> the Canaanites had thus + submitted themselves to the Jewish theocracy, and conformed to the + requirements of the Mosaic institutes, would not <em>all</em> have been + spared upon the same principle that <em>one</em> was? Again, look at the + multitude of <i>tributaries</i> in the midst of Israel, + and that too, after they had "waxed strong," and the uttermost nations + quaked at the terror of their name—the Canaanites, Philistines and + others, who became proselytes—as the Nethenims, Uriah the + Hittite—Rahab, who married one of the princes of Judah—Jether, an + Ishmaelite, who married Abigail the sister of David and was the father of + Amasa, the captain of the host of Israel. Comp. 1 Chron. ii. 17, with + 2 Sam. xvii. 25.—Ittai—the six hundred Gittites, David's body + guard. 2. Sam xv. 18, 21. Obededom the Gittite, adopted into the tribe of + Levi. Comp. 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1 Chron. xv. 18, and + xxvi. 4, 5—Jaziz, + + and Obil. 1 Chron, xxvii. 30, 31. Jephunneh the Kenezite, + Josh. xiv. 6, and father of Caleb a ruler of the tribe of Judah. Numb. + xiii. 2, 6—the Kenites registered in the genealogies of the tribe of + Judah, Judg. i. 16; 1 Chron. ii. 55, and the one hundred and fifty + thousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon in the building of the + Temple.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN57"><sup>D</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN57"></a> Besides, the greatest miracle on record, was wrought to + save a portion of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of those + who would exterminate them. Josh. x. 12-14. Further—the terms + employed in the directions regulating the disposal of the Canaanites, such + as "drive out," "put out," "cast out," "expel," "dispossess," &c., seem + used interchangeably with "consume," "destroy," "overthrow," &c., and + thus indicate the sense in which the latter words are used. As an illustration + of the meaning generally attached to these and similar + terms, we refer to the history of the Amalekites. "I will utterly put + out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." Ex. xvii. 14. + "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; + thou shalt not forget it." Deut. xxv. 19. "Smite Amalek and + <em>utterly destroy</em> all that they have, and spare them not, but slay + both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep." 1 Sam. xv. 2, + 3. "Saul smote the Amalekites, and he took Agag the king of the + Amalekites, alive and UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with + the edge of the sword." Verses 7, 8. In verse 20, Saul says, "I + have brought Agag, the king of Amalek, and have <em>utterly destroyed</em> + the Amalekites." In 1 Sam. xxx. 1, 2, we find the Amalekites marching + an army into Israel, and sweeping everything before them—and this + in about eighteen years after they had all been "UTTERLY DESTROYED!" + In 1 Kings ii. 15-17, is another illustration. We are informed + that Joab remained in Edom six months with all Israel, "until he had + <em>cut off every male</em>" in Edom. In the next verse we learn that + Hadad and "certain Edomites" were not slain. Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably + be quoted against the preceding view. We argue that the command + in these verses, did not include all the individuals of the Canaanitish + nations, but only the inhabitants of the <em>cities</em>, (and even those + conditionally,) because, only the inhabitants of <em>cities</em> are + specified—"of the <em>cities</em> of these people thou shalt save + alive nothing that breatheth." Cities then, as now, were pest-houses of vice, + they reeked with abominations little practised in the country. On this + account, their influence + + would be far more perilous to the Israelites than that of the country. + Besides, they were the centres of idolatry—there were the temples and + altars, and idols, and priests, without number. Even their buildings, + streets, and public walks were so many visibilities of idolatry. The + reason assigned in the 18th verse for exterminating them, strengthens + the idea—"that they teach you not to do after all the abominations which + they have done unto their gods." This would be a reason for exterminating + all the nations and individuals <em>around</em> them, + as all were idolaters; but God commanded them, in certain cases, to + spare the inhabitants. Contact with <em>any</em> of them + would be perilous—with the inhabitants of the <em>cities</em> + peculiarly, and of the <i>Canaanitish</i> cities + pre-eminently so. The 10th and 11th verses contain the general rule + prescribing the method in which cities were to be summoned to surrender. + They were first to receive the offer of peace—if it was accepted, + the inhabitants became <i>tributaries</i>—but if + they came out against Israel in battle, the <em>men</em> were + to be killed, and the woman and little ones saved alive. The 15th verse + restricts this lenient treatment to the inhabitants of the cities + <em>afar off</em>. The 16th directs as to the disposal + of the inhabitants of the Canaanitish cities. They were to save alive + "nothing that breathed." The common mistake has been, in supposing + that the command in the 15th verse refers to the + <em>whole system of directions preceding,</em> + commencing with the 10th, whereas it manifestly refers only to the + <em>inflictions</em> specified in + the 12th, 13th, and, 14th, making a distinction between those + <i>Canaanitish</i> cities that + <em>fought</em>, and the cities + <em>afar off</em> that fought—in one case destroying + the males and females, and in the other, the + <em>males</em> only. The offer of peace, and the + <i>conditional preservation</i>, were as really + guarantied to <i>Canaanitish</i> cities as to others. + Their inhabitants were not to be exterminated unless they came out against + Israel in battle. Whatever be the import of the commands respecting the + disposition to be made of the Canaanites, all admit the fact that the + Israelites did <em>not</em> utterly exterminate them. + Now, if entire and unconditional extermination + was the command of God, it was <em>never</em> obeyed by the + Israelites, consequently the truth of God stood pledged to consign + <em>them</em> to the same doom which he had pronounced + upon the Canaanites, but which they had refused to visit upon them. "If ye + will not drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it + shall come to pass that * * <em>I shall do unto you as I + thought to do unto them</em>." Num. xxxiii. 55, + 56. As the Israelites were not exterminated, we infer that God did not + pronounce <em>that</em> doom upon them; and as he <em>did</em> + pronounce upon them the <em>same</em> doom, whatever it was, which they + should <em>refuse</em> to + + visit upon the Canaanites, it follows that the doom of unconditional + <i>extermination</i> was <em>not</em> pronounced + against the Canaanites. But let us settle this question by the "law and the + testimony." "There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel + save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all others they took in battle. + For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should COME OUT + AGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they + might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded + Moses." Josh. xi. 19. 20. That is, if they had <em>not</em> come out + against Israel in battle, they would have had "favor" shown them, and would + not have been "<i>destroyed utterly</i>." The great design + was to <i>transfer the territory</i> of the Canaanites to + the Israelites, and along with it, <i>absolute sovereignty in + every respect</i>; to annihilate their political organizations, civil + polity, and jurisprudence, and their system of religion, with all its rights + and appendages; and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy, administered by + Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and agents. In a word + the people were to be <i>denationalized,</i> their + political existence annihilated, their idol temples, altars, groves, images, + pictures, and heathen rites destroyed, and themselves put under tribute. + Those who resisted the execution of Jehovah's purpose were to be killed, + while those who quietly submitted to it were to be spared. All had the + choice of these alternatives, either free egress out of the + land;<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r4_FN58"><sup>E</sup></a><a name="FootE4r4_FN58"></a> or acquiescence in the + decree, with life and residence as tributaries, under the protection of the + government; or resistance to the execution of the decree, with death. + "<em>And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of + my people, to swear by my name, the Lord liveth, as they taught my people to + swear by Baal;</em> THEN SHALL THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN54"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN54">A</a>: In the prophecy, Gen. ix. 25, the subjection + of the Canaanites as a conquered people rendering tribute to other nations, + is foretold by inspiration. The fulfilment of this prediction, seems to have + commenced in the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites as + tributaries. If the Israelites had exterminated them, as the objector asserts + they were commanded to do; the prediction would have been + <em>falsified</em>. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN55"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN55">B</a>: These two verses are so + explicit we quote them entire—"And it shall be if thou do at all forget + the Lord they God and walk after other Gods and serve them, and worship them, + I testify against you this day that ye shall surely <em>perish</em>, as + the nations which the Lord destroyed before your face, <em>so</em> shall + ye perish." The following passages are, if possible still more + explicit—"The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation and rebuke in + all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be + <em>destroyed</em>, and until thou perish quickly." "The + Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee until he have + <em>consumed</em> thee." "They (the 'sword,' 'blasting,' &c.) shall + pursue thee until thou <em>perish</em>." "From heaven shall it come down + upon thee until thou be <em>destroyed</em>." "All these curses shall come + upon thee till thou be <em>destroyed</em>." "He shall put a yoke of + iron upon thy neck until he have <em>destroyed</em> thee." "The Lord shall + bring a nation against thee, a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not + regard the person of the old, nor show favor to the young, * * until he have + <em>destroyed</em> thee." All these, with other similar threatenings of + <em>destruction</em>, are contained in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deut. + See verses 20-25, 45, 48, 51. In the <em>same</em> chapter God declares + that as a punishment for the same transgressions, the Israelites shall "be + <em>removed</em> into all the kingdoms of the earth," thus showing + that the terms employed in the other verses, "destroy," "perish," "perish + quickly," "consume," &c., instead of signifying utter, personal + destruction doubtless meant their destruction as an independent nation. In + Josh. xxiv. 8, 18, "destroyed" and "drave out," are used + synonymously. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN56"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN56">C</a>: Perhaps it will be objected, that the + preservation of the Gibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation + of the command of God. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such + intimation. If God had straitly commanded them to <em>exterminate all the + Canaanites</em>, their pledge to save them alive, was neither a repeal of + the statute, nor absolution for the breach of it. If + <i>unconditional destruction</i> was the import of the + command, would God have permitted such an act to pass without rebuke? Would he + have established such a precedent when Israel had hardly passed the threshold + of Canaan, and was then striking the first blow of a half century war? What + if they <em>had</em> passed their word to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was + that more binding than God's command? So Saul seems to have passed + <em>his</em> word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in pieces, because in + saving his life, Saul had violated God's command. When Saul sought to slay the + Gibeonites in "his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah," God sent upon + Israel a three years' famine for it. When David inquired of them what + atonement he should make, they say, "The man that devised against us, that we + should be destroyed from <em>remaining in any of the coast of + Israel</em>, let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. + 2 Sam. xxi. 1-6. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN57"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN57">D</a>: If the Canaanites were devoted by God to + unconditional extermination, to have employed them in the erection of the + temple,—what was it but the climax of impiety? As well might they + pollute its altars with swine's flesh or make their sons pass through the + fire to Moloch. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r4_FN58"></a><a href="#FootE4r4_FN58">E</a>: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had + abandoned their territory at the tidings of Israel's approach, did God's + command require the Israelites to chase them to ends of the earth, and hunt + them out, until every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for + belief, and yet it follows legitimately from that construction, which + interprets the terms "consume," "destroy," "destroy utterly," &c. to + mean unconditional, individual extermination. + </p> + <p> + [The original design of the preceding Inquiry embraced a much wider range of + topics. It was soon found, however, that to fill up the outline would be to + make a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore been thrown into a mere + series of <i>indices</i>, to trains of thought and + classes of proof, which, however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford + some facilities to those who have little leisure for protracted + investigation.] + + </p> + </div> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h2><a name="E5"></a> + NO. 5. + <br><br><br> + THE + <br><br> + ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. + <br><br> + THE + <br><br> + POWER OF CONGRESS + <br><br> + OVER THE + <br> + DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. + + </h2> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + <p> + REPRINTED FROM THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, WITH ADDITIONS BY THE + AUTHOR. + + </p> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + NEW-YORK: + + <p> + PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, + <br> + NO. 143 NASSAU-STREET. + <br> + 1838. + + </p> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + <p> + This periodical contains 3 1/2 sheets.—Postage under 100 miles, 6 cts.; over 100, 10 cts. + + </p> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E5pwrDC"></a> + POWER OF CONGRESS + <br><br> + OVER THE + <br><br> + DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. + <br><br></h3> + <p> + A civilized community presupposes a government of law. If + that government be a republic, its citizens are the sole <em>sources</em>, + as well as the <em>subjects</em> of its power. Its constitution is their + bill of directions to their own agents—a grant authorizing the exercise + of certain powers, and prohibiting that of others. In the Constitution of the + United States, whatever else may be obscure, the clause granting power to + Congress over the Federal District may well defy misconstruction. + Art. 1, Sec. 6, Clause 18: "The Congress shall have power to exercise + exclusive legislation, <em>in all cases whatsoever</em>, over such + District." Congress may make laws for the District "in all + <em>cases</em>," not of all <em>kinds</em>; not all <em>laws</em> + whatsoever, but laws "in all <em>cases</em> whatsoever." + The grant respects the <em>subjects</em> of legislation, <em>not</em> + the moral nature of the laws. The law-making power every where is subject to + <em>moral</em> restrictions, whether limited by constitutions or not. No + legislature can authorize murder, nor make honesty penal, nor virtue a crime, + nor exact impossibilities. In these and similar respects, the power of + Congress is held in check by principles, existing in the nature of + things, not imposed by the Constitution, but presupposed and assumed + by it. The power of Congress over the District is restricted only by + those principles that limit ordinary legislation, and, in some respects, + it has even wider scope. + + </p> + <p> + In common with the legislatures of the States, Congress cannot + constitutionally pass ex post facto laws in criminal cases, nor suspend + the writ of habeas corpus, nor pass a bill of attainder, nor abridge the + freedom of speech and of the press, nor invade the right of the people + to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, nor enact + laws respecting an establishment of religion. These are general limitations. + Congress cannot do these things <em>any where</em>. The exact + import, therefore, of the clause "in all cases whatsoever," is, <em>on all + subjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation</em>. Some + legislatures + are restrained by constitutions, from the exercise of powers + strictly within the proper sphere of legislation. Congressional power + over the District has no such restraint. It traverses the whole field + of legitimate legislation. All the power which any legislature has + within its own jurisdiction, Congress holds over the District of Columbia. + + </p> + <p> + It has been objected that the clause in question respects merely + + police regulations, and that its sole design was to enable Congress to + protect itself against popular tumults. But if the convention that + framed the Constitution aimed to provide for a <em>single</em> case only, + why did they provide for "<em>all</em> cases whatsoever?" Besides, this + clause was opposed in many of the state conventions, because the grant of + power was extended to "<em>all</em> cases whatsoever," instead of being + restricted to police regulations <em>alone</em>. In the Virginia + Convention, George Mason, the father of the Virginia Constitution, Patrick + Henry, Mr. Grayson, and others, assailed it on that ground. Mr. Mason said, + "This clause gives an unlimited authority in every possible case within + the District. He would willingly give them exclusive power as far as + respected the police and good government of the place, but he would + give them no more." Mr. Grayson exclaimed against so large a + grant of power—said that control over the <em>police</em> was + all-sufficient, and "that the Continental Congress never had an idea of + exclusive legislation in all cases." Patrick Henry said: "Shall we be told, + when about to grant such illimitable authority, that it will never be + exercised? Is it consistent with any principle of prudence or good + policy, to grant <em>unlimited, unbounded authority</em>?" Mr. Madison + said in reply: "I did conceive that the clause under consideration was one + of those parts which would speak its own praise. I cannot comprehend + that the power of legislation over a small District, will involve + the dangers which he apprehends. When any power is given, it's delegation + necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute it. + * * * * The powers which are found necessary to be given, are + therefore delegated <em>generally</em>, and particular and minute + specification is left to the Legislature. * * * It is not within the limits of + human capacity to delineate on paper all those particular cases and + circumstances, in which legislation by the general legislature, would be + necessary." Governor Randolph said: "Holland has no ten miles + square, but she has the Hague where the deputies of the States assemble. + But the influence which it has given the province of Holland, to + have the seat of government within its territory, subject in some respects + to its control, has been injurious to the other provinces. The + wisdom of the convention is therefore manifest in granting to Congress + exclusive jurisdiction over the place of their session." + (<i>See debates in the Virginia Convention</i>, p. 320.) In + the forty-third number of the "Federalist," Mr. Madison says: "The + indispensable necessity of <em>complete</em> authority at the seat of + government, carries its own evidence with it." + + </p> + <p> + Finally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to + the obvious import of its <em>terms</em>, and not in such a way as to + restrict it to <em>police</em> regulations, is proved by the fact, that + the State of Virginia proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution + at the time of its adoption, providing that this clause "should be so + construed as to give power only over the <em>police and good + government</em> of said District," <em>which amendment was + rejected</em>. Fourteen other amendments, proposed at the same time by + Virginia, were <em>adopted</em>. + + </p> + <p> + The former part, of the clause under consideration, "Congress + shall have power to exercise <em>exclusive</em> legislation," gives sole + jurisdiction, and the latter part, "in all cases whatsoever," defines the + <em>extent</em> of it. Since, then, Congress is the <em>sole</em> + legislature within the District, and since its power is limited only by the + checks common to all legislatures, it follows that what the law-making power + is intrinsically competent to do <em>any</em> where, Congress is competent + to do in the District of Columbia. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E5stat"></a> + STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION AT ISSUE. + + </h3> + <p> + Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to argue the <em>real + question</em> at issue. Is the law-making power competent to abolish slavery + when not restricted in that particular by constitutional provisions—or, + <em>Is the abolition of slavery within the appropriate sphere of + legislation?</em></p> + <p> + In every government, absolute sovereignty exists <em>somewhere</em>. In + the United States it exists primarily with the <em>people</em>, and + <em>ultimate</em> sovereignty <em>always</em> exists with them. + In each of the States, the legislature possesses a + <i>representative</i> sovereignty, delegated by the people + through the Constitution—the people thus committing to the legislature + a portion of their sovereignty, and specifying in their constitutions the + amount and the conditions of the grant. That the <em>people</em> in any + state where slavery exists, have the power to abolish it, none will deny. If + the legislature have not the power, it is because <em>the people</em> have + reserved it to themselves. Had they lodged with the legislature "power + to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," they + would have parted with their sovereignty over the legislation of the + State, and so far forth the legislature would have become + <em>the people</em>, clothed with all their functions, and as such + competent, <em>during the continuance of the grant</em>, to do whatever + the people might have done before the surrender of their power: consequently, + they would have the power to abolish slavery. The sovereignty of the District + of Columbia exists <em>somewhere</em>—where is it lodged? The + citizens of the District have no legislature of their own, no representation + in Congress, and no political power whatever. Maryland and Virginia have + surrendered to the United States their "full and absolute right and entire + sovereignty," and the people of the United States have committed to + Congress by the Constitution, the power to "exercise exclusive legislation + in all cases whatsoever over such District." + + </p> + <p> + Thus, the sovereignty of the District of Columbia, is shown to reside + solely in the Congress of the United States; and since the power of the + people of a state to abolish slavery within their own limits, results from + their entire sovereignty within the state, so the power of Congress to + abolish slavery in the District, results from its entire + <em>sovereignty</em> within the District. If it be objected that Congress + can have no more power over the District, than was held by the legislatures of + Maryland and Virginia, we ask what clause in the constitution graduates the + power of Congress by the standard of a state legislature? Was the United + States constitution worked into its present shape under the measuring + line and square of Virginia and Maryland? and is its power to be bevelled + + down till it can run in the grooves of state legislation? There is + a deal of prating about constitutional power over the District, as though + Congress were indebted for it to Maryland and Virginia. The powers + of those states, whether few or many, prodigies or nullities, have nothing + to do with the question. As well thrust in the powers of the Grand + Lama to join issue upon, or twist papal bulls into constitutional tether, + with which to curb congressional action. The Constitution of the + United States gives power to Congress, and takes it away, and <em>it + alone</em>. Maryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution + <em>before</em> they ceded to the united States the territory of the + District. By their acts of cession, they abdicated their own sovereignty over + the District, and thus made room for that provided by the United States + constitution, which sovereignty was to commence as soon as a cession of + territory by states, and its acceptance by Congress furnished a sphere for its + exercise. + + </p> + <p> + That the abolition of slavery is within the sphere of legislation, I + argue, <em>secondly</em>, from the fact, that <em>slavery as a legal + system, is the creature of legislation</em>. The law by + <em>creating</em> slavery, not only affirmed its <em>existence</em> + to be within the sphere and under the control of legislation, but equally, + the <em>conditions</em> and <em>terms</em> of its existence, and the + <em>question</em> whether or not it <em>should</em> exist. Of course + legislation would not travel <em>out</em> of its sphere, in abolishing + what is <em>within</em> it, and what was recognised + to be within it, by its own act. Cannot legislatures repeal their + own laws? If law can take from a man his rights, it can give them + back again. If it can say, "your body belongs to your neighbor," it + can say, "it belongs to <em>yourself</em>, and I will sustain your right." + If it can annul a man's right to himself, held by express grant from his + Maker, and can create for another an artificial title to him, can it not annul + the artificial title, and leave the original owner to hold himself by his + original title? + + </p> + <p> + 3. <em>The abolition of slavery has always been considered within the + appropriate sphere of legislation</em>. Almost every civilized nation has + abolished slavery by law. The history of legislation since the revival of + letters, is a record crowded with testimony to the universally admitted + competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery. It is so + manifestly an attribute not merely of absolute sovereignty, but even + of ordinary legislation, that the competency of a legislature to exercise + it, may well nigh be reckoned among the legal axioms of the civilized + world. Even the night of the dark ages was not dark enough + to make this invisible. + + </p> + <p> + The Abolition decree of the great council of England was passed + in 1102. The memorable Irish decree, "that all the English slaves + in the whole of Ireland, be immediately emancipated and restored to + their former liberty," was issued in 1171. Slavery in England was + abolished by a general charter of emancipation in 1381. Passing + over many instances of the abolition of slavery by law, both during + the middle ages and since the reformation, we find them multiplying + as we approach our own times. In 1776 slavery was abolished in + Prussia by special edict. In St. Domingo, Cayenne, Guadaloupe + + and Martinique, in 1794, where more than 600,000 slaves were + emancipated by the French government. In Java, 1811; in Ceylon, + 1815; in Buenos Ayres, 1816; in St. Helena, 1819; in Colombia, + 1821; by the Congress of Chili in 1821; in Cape Colony, 1823; + in Malacca, 1825; in the southern provinces of Birmah, in 1826; in + Bolivia, 1826; in Peru, Guatemala, and Monte Video, 1828, in Jamaica, + Barbadoes, Bermudas, Bahamas, the Mauritius, St. Christopher's, + Nevis, the Virgin Islands, Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, St. + Vincents, Grenada, Berbice, Tobago, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Honduras, + Demarara, and the Cape of Good Hope, on the 1st of August, 1834. + But waving details, suffice it to say, that England, France, Spain, + Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Prussia, and Germany, have all + and often given their testimony to the competency of the law to + abolish slavery. In our own country, the Legislature of Pennsylvania + passed an act of abolition in 1780, Connecticut, in 1784; Rhode Island, + 1784; New-York, 1799; New-Jersey, in 1804; Vermont, by Constitution, + in 1777; Massachusetts, in 1780; and New Hampshire, in + 1784. + + </p> + <p> + When the competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery, + has thus been recognised every where and for ages, when it has been + embodied in the highest precedents, and celebrated in the thousand + jubilees of regenerated liberty, is it forsooth an achievement of modern + discovery, that such a power is a nullity?—that all these acts of + abolition are void, and that the millions disenthralled by them, are, either + themselves or their posterity, still legally in bondage? + + </p> + <p> + 4. <em>Legislative power has abolished slavery in its parts</em>. The law + of South Carolina prohibits the working of slaves more than fifteen + hours in the twenty-four. [<em>See</em><em>Brevard's Digest</em>, + 253.] In other words, it takes from the slaveholder his power over nine hours + of the slave's time daily; and if it can take nine hours it may take + twenty-four—if two-fifths, then five-fifths. The laws of Georgia + prohibit the working of slaves on the first day of the week; and if they can + do it for the first, they can for the six following. Laws embodying + the same principle have existed for ages in nearly all governments + that have tolerated slavery. + + </p> + <p> + The law of North Carolina prohibits the "immoderate" correction + of slaves. If it has power to prohibit <em>immoderate</em> correction, it + can prohibit <em>moderate</em> correction—<em>all</em> + correction, which would be virtual emancipation; for, take from the master the + power to inflict pain, and he is master no longer. Cease to ply the slave with + the stimulus of fear, and he is free. Laws similar to this exist in + slaveholding governments generally. + + </p> + <p> + The Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power + to make laws "to oblige the owners of slaves to <em>treat them with + humanity</em>." The Constitution of Missouri has the same clause, and an + additional one making it the DUTY of the legislature to pass such laws + as may be necessary to secure the <em>humane</em> treatment of the slaves. + This grant of power to those legislatures empowers them to decide + + what <em>is</em> and what is <em>not</em> "humane treatment." + Otherwise it gives no "power"—the clause is mere waste paper, and flouts + in the face of a mocked and befooled legislature. A clause giving power to + require "humane treatment" covers all the <em>particulars</em> of such + treatment—gives power to exact it in all + <em>respects—requiring</em> certain acts, and + <em>prohibiting</em> others—maiming, branding, chaining together, + allowing each but a quart of corn a day,<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4r5_FN1"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE4r5_FN1"></a> and but "one shirt and one pair + of pantaloons" in six months<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE5_FN2"><sup>B</sup></a><a name="FootE5_FN2"></a>—separating families, destroying marriages, + floggings for learning the alphabet and reading the Bible—robbing + them of their oath, of jury trial, and of the right to worship + God according to conscience—the legislature has power to specify + each of these acts—declare that it is not "<em>humane</em> + treatment," and PROHIBIT it.—The legislature may also believe that + driving men and women into the field, and forcing them to work without pay as + long as they live, is not "humane treatment," and being constitutionally + bound "to <em>oblige</em>" masters to practise "humane + treatment"—they have the <em>power</em> to <em>prohibit + such</em> treatment, and are bound to do it. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE4r5_FN1"></a><a href="#FootE4r5_FN1">A</a>: Law of North + Carolina, Haywood's Manual, 524-5. + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE5_FN2"></a><a href="#FootE5_FN2">B</a>: Law of Louisiana, + Martin's Digest, 610. + </p> + <p> + The law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the holder, if he + be also a <em>land</em> holder, to separate them from the + soil.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE5_FN3"><sup>C</sup></a><a name="FootE5_FN3"></a> If it has power to prohibit the sale + <em>without</em> the soil, it can prohibit the sale <em>with</em> it; + and if it can prohibit the <em>sale</em> as property, it can prohibit + the <em>holding</em> as property. Similar laws exist in the French, + Spanish, and Portuguese colonies. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE5_FN3"></a><a href="#FootE5_FN3">C</a>: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law passed + in 1705. (<em>Beverly's Hist. of Va.</em>, p. 98.) I do not find the + precise time when this law was repealed, probably when Virginia became the + chief slave breeder for the cotton-growing and sugar-planting country, and + made young men and women "from fifteen to twenty-five" the main staple + production of the State. + </p> + <p> + The law of Louisiana requires the master to give his slaves a certain + amount of food and clothing, (<em>Martin's Digest</em>, 610.) If it can + oblige the master to give the slave <em>one</em> thing, it can oblige him + to give him another: if food and clothing, then wages, liberty, his own body. + Such laws exist in most slaveholding governments. + + </p> + <p> + By the slave laws of Connecticut, under which slaves are now held, + (for even Connecticut is still a slave State,) slaves might receive and + hold property, and prosecute suits in their own name as plaintiffs: + [This last was also the law of Virginia in 1795. See Tucker's + "Dissertation on Slavery," p. 73.] There were also laws making + marriage contracts legal, in certain contingencies, and punishing + infringements of them, ["<em>Reeve's Law of Baron and Femme</em>," + p. 310-1.] Each of the laws enumerated above, does, <em>in principle</em>, + abolish slavery; and all of them together abolish it <em>in fact</em>. + True, not as a <em>whole</em>, and at a <em>stroke</em>, nor all in + one place; but in its <em>parts</em>, by piecemeal, at + divers times and places; thus showing that the abolition of slavery is + within the boundary of <i>legislation</i>. + + </p> + <p> + 5.<em>The competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery has + been recognized by all the slaveholding States, either directly or by + implication</em>. Some States recognize it in their + <em>Constitutions</em>, by giving the legislature power to emancipate + such slaves as may "have rendered the state some distinguished service," and + others by express prohibitory restrictions. The Constitutions of Mississippi, + Arkansas, and other States, restrict the power of the legislature in this + respect. Why this express prohibition, if the law-making power cannot abolish + slavery? A stately farce, indeed, formally to construct a special + clause, and with appropriate rites induct it into the Constitution, for + the express purpose of restricting a nonentity!—to take from the + lawmaking power what it <em>never had</em>, and what <em>cannot</em> + pertain to it! The legislatures of those States have no power to abolish + slavery, simply because their Constitutions have expressly <em>taken + away</em> that power. The people of Arkansas, Mississippi, &c., well + knew the competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery, and hence + their zeal to <em>restrict</em> it. The fact that these and other States + have inhibited their legislatures from the exercise of this power, shows that + the abolition of slavery is acknowledged to be a proper subject of + legislation, when Constitutions impose no restrictions. + + </p> + <p> + The slaveholding States have recognised this power in their + <em>laws</em>. The Virginia Legislature passed a law in 1786 to prevent + the further importation of Slaves, of which the following is an + extract: "And be it further enacted that every slave imported into + this commonwealth contrary to the true intent and meaning of this + act, shall upon such importation become <em>free</em>." By a law of + Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792, a slave brought into the state and kept + <em>there a year</em>, was <em>free</em>. The Maryland Court of + Appeals at the December term 1813 (see case of Stewart + <i>vs.</i> Oakes,) decided that a slave owned + in Maryland, and sent by his master into Virginia to work at different + periods, making one year in the whole, became <em>free</em>, being + <i>emancipated</i> by the law of Virginia quoted above. + North Carolina and Georgia in their acts of cession, transferring to the + United States the territory now constituting the States of Tennessee, Alabama + and Mississippi, made it a condition of the grant, that the provisions of the + ordinance of '87, should be secured to the inhabitants <em>with the + exception of the sixth article which prohibits slavery</em>; thus conceding, + both the competency of law to abolish slavery, and the power of Congress to do + it, within its jurisdiction. Besides, these acts show the prevalent belief at + that time, in the slaveholding States, that the general government had adopted + a line of policy aiming at the exclusion of slavery from the entire territory + of the United States, not included within the original States, and + that this policy would be pursued unless prevented by specific and formal + stipulation. + + </p> + <p> + Slaveholding states have asserted this power <em>in their judicial + decisions.</em> In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if + the legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has + been abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal + emancipates + + them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery. This principle is + asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, + in the case of Lunsford <i>vs.</i> Coquillon, 14 Martin's + La. Reps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter + <i>vs.</i> Fulcher, 1 Leigh's Reps. 172. The same doctrine + was laid down by Judge Washington, of the United States Supreme Court, in the + case of Butler <i>vs.</i> Hopper, Washington's Circuit + Court Reps. 508. This principle was also decided by the Court of Appeals in + Kentucky; case of Rankin <i>vs.</i> Lydia, 2 Marshall's + Reps. 407; see also, Wilson <i>vs.</i> Isbell, 5 + Call's Reps. 425, Spotts <i>vs.</i> Gillespie, 6 + Randolph's Reps. 566. The State <i>vs.</i> Lasselle, 1 + Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise <i>vs.</i> Mariot, 8 + La. Reps. 475. In this case, which was tried in 1836, the slave had + been taken by her master to France and brought back; Judge Mathews, + of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that "residence + for one moment" under the laws of France emancipated her. + + </p> + <p> + 6. <em>Eminent statesmen, themselves slaveholders, have conceded this + power</em>. Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated April 12, + 1786, says: "There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely + than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery; but there + is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, + and that is by <i>legislative</i> authority." In a letter + to Lafayette, dated May 10, 1786, he says: "It (the abolition of slavery) + certainly might, and assuredly ought to be effected, and that too by + <i>legislative</i> authority." In a letter to John Fenton + Mercer, dated Sept. 9, 1786, he says: "It is among my first wishes to see some + plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished by + <em>law</em>." In a letter to Sir John Sinclair, he says: "There are in + Pennsylvania, <em>laws</em> for the gradual abolition of slavery, which + neither Maryland nor Virginia have at present, but which nothing is more + certain that that they <em>must have</em>, and at a period not remote." + Speaking of movements in the Virginia Legislature in 1777, for the passage of + a law emancipating the slaves, Mr. Jefferson says: "The principles of the + amendment were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a + certain day; but it was found that the public mind would not bear the + proposition, yet the day is not far distant, when <em>it must bear and adopt + it</em>."—Jefferson's Memoirs, v. 1, p. 35. It is well known that + Jefferson, Pendleton, Mason, Wythe and Lee, while acting as a committee of the + Virginia House of Delegates to revise the State Laws, prepared a plan + for the gradual emancipation of the slaves by law. These men were + the great lights of Virginia. Mason, the author of the Virginia Constitution; + Pendleton, the President of the memorable Virginia Convention + in 1787, and President of the Virginia Court of Appeals; Wythe + was the Blackstone of the Virginia bench, for a quarter of a century + Chancellor of the State, the professor of law in the University of William + and Mary, and the preceptor of Jefferson, Madison, and Chief + Justice Marshall. He was author of the celebrated remonstrance to + the English House of Commons on the subject of the stamp act. As + to Jefferson, his <em>name</em> is his biography. + + </p> + <p> + Every slaveholding member of Congress from the States of Maryland, + Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, voted for the + celebrated ordinance of 1787, which <em>abolished</em> the slavery then + existing in the Northwest Territory. Patrick Henry, in his well known letter + to Robert Pleasants, of Virginia, January 18, 1773, says: "I believe + a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to + <em>abolish</em> this lamentable evil." William Pinkney, of Maryland, + advocated the abolition of slavery by law, in the legislature of that State, + in 1789. Luther Martin urged the same measure both in the Federal Convention, + and in his report to the Legislature of Maryland. In 1796, St. George + Tucker, professor of law in the University of William and Mary, and + Judge of the General Court, published an elaborate dissertation on slavery, + addressed to the General Assembly of the State, and urging upon + them the abolition of slavery by <em>law</em>. + + </p> + <p> + John Jay, while New-York was yet a slave State, and himself in law + a slaveholder, said in a letter from Spain, in 1786, "An excellent law + might be made out of the Pennsylvania one, for the gradual abolition + of slavery. Were I in your legislature, I would present a bill for the + purpose, drawn up with great care, and I would never cease moving it + till it became a law, or I ceased to be a member." + + </p> + <p> + Daniel D. Tompkins, in a message to the Legislature of New-York, + January 8, 1812, said: "To devise the means for the gradual and ultimate + <em>extermination</em> from amongst us of slavery, is work worthy the + representatives of a polished and enlightened nation." + + </p> + <p> + The Virginia Legislature asserted this power in 1832. At the + close of a month's debate, the following proceedings were had. I extract + from an editorial article of the Richmond Whig, of January 26, + 1832. + + </p> + <p> + "The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on the subject of + Abolition, was in these words: <em>Resolved</em>, as the opinion + of this Committee, that it is INEXPEDIENT FOR THE PRESENT, to + make any legislative enactments for the abolition of Slavery." This + Report Mr. Preston moved to reverse, and thus to declare that it + <em>was</em> expedient, <em>now</em> to make Legislative enactments + for the abolition of slavery. This was meeting the question in its strongest + form. It demanded action, and immediate action. On this proposition the vote + was 58 to 73. Many of the most decided friends of abolition voted + against the amendment; because they thought public opinion not sufficiently + prepared for it, and that it might prejudice the cause to move + too rapidly. The vote on Mr. Witcher's motion to postpone the whole + subject indefinitely, indicates the true state of opinion in the + House.—That was the test question, and was so intended and proclaimed by + its mover. That motion was <em>negatived</em>, 71 to 60; showing a + majority of 11, who by that vote, declared their belief that "at the proper + time, and in the proper mode, Virginia ought to commence a system + of gradual abolition." + + </p> + <p> + 8. <em>The Congress of the United States have asserted this power</em>. + The ordinance of '87, declaring that there should be "neither slavery + + nor involuntary servitude," in the North Western territory, abolished + the slavery then existing there. The Supreme Court of Mississippi, + in its decision in the case of Harvey <i>vs.</i> Decker, + Walker's Mi. Reps. 36, declared that the ordinance emancipated the slaves then + held there. In this decision the question is argued ably and at great length. + The Supreme Court of Louisiana made the same decision in the case of Forsyth + <i>vs.</i> Nash, 4 Martin's La. Reps 385. The same + doctrine was laid down by Judge Porter, (late United States Senator from + Louisiana,) in his decision at the March term of the La. Supreme + Court, 1830, in the case of Merry <i>vs.</i> Chexnaider, + 20 Martin's Reps. 699. + + </p> + <p> + That the ordinance abolished the slavery then existing, is also shown + by the fact, that persons holding slaves in the territory petitioned for the + repeal of the article abolishing slavery, assigning that as a reason. "The + petition of the citizens of Randolph and St. Clair counties in the Illinois + country, stating that they were in possession of slaves, and praying the + repeal of that act (the 6th article of the ordinance of '87) and the passage + of a law legalizing slavery there." [Am. State papers, Public Lands, v. 1. + p. 69,] Congress passed this ordinance before the United States Constitution + was adopted, when it derived all + its authority from the articles of Confederation, which conferred powers + of legislation far more restricted than those conferred on Congress over + the District and Territories by the United States Constitution. Now, we ask, + how does the Constitution <em>abridge</em> the powers which + Congress possessed under the articles of confederation? + + </p> + <p> + The abolition of the slave trade by Congress, in 1808, is another + illustration of the competency of legislative power to abolish slavery. + The African slave trade has become such a mere + <i>technic</i>, in common + parlance, that the fact of its being <i>proper slavery</i> + is overlooked. The buying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of + the middle passage, were mere <em>incidents</em> of the slavery in which + the victims were held. Let things be called by their own names. When Congress + abolished the African slave trade, it abolished SLAVERY—supreme + slavery—power frantic with license, trampling a whole hemisphere + scathed with its fires, and running down with blood. True, Congress + did not, in the abolition of the slave trade, abolish <em>all</em> the + slavery within its jurisdiction, but it did abolish all the slavery in + <em>one part</em> of its jurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to + abolish slavery in <em>another</em> part of its jurisdiction, especially + in that part where it has "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?" + + </p> + <p> + 9. <em>The Constitution of the United States recognizes this power by + the most conclusive implication</em>. In Art. 1, sec. 3, clause 1, it + prohibits the abolition of the slave trade previous to 1808: thus implying the + power of Congress to do it at once, but for the restriction; and its power + to do it <em>unconditionally</em>, when that restriction ceased. Again: In + Art. 4, sec. 2, "No person held to service or labor in one state under the + laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or + regulation therein, be discharged from said service or labor." + + This clause was inserted, as all admit, to prevent the runaway slave + from being emancipated by the <em>laws</em> of the free states. If these + laws had <em>no power</em> to emancipate, why this constitutional guard + to prevent it? + + </p> + <p> + The insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists + that framed the Constitution, to the existence of the <em>power</em>, and + their public proclamation, that the abolition of slavery was within the + appropriate sphere of legislation. The right of the owner to that which + is rightfully property, is founded on a principle of + <i>universal law</i>, and is recognised and protected by + all civilized nations; property in slaves is, by general consent, an + <em>exception</em>; hence slaveholders insisted upon the insertion of + this clause in the United States Constitution that they might secure by an + <i>express provision</i>, that from which protection is + withheld, by the acknowledged principles of universal + law.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE5_FN4"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE5_FN4"></a> By demanding + this provision, slaveholders consented that their slaves should + not be recognised as property by the United States Constitution, and + hence they found their claim, on the fact of their being + "<em>persons</em>, and <i>held</i> to service." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE5_FN4"></a><a href="#FootE5_FN4">A</a>: The fact, that under the articles of + Confederation, slaveholders, whose slaves had escaped into free states, had no + legal power to force them back,—that <em>now</em> they have no + power to recover, by process of law, their slaves who escape to Canada, the + South American States, or to Europe—the case already cited in which + the Supreme Court of Louisiana decided, that residence "<em>for + one moment</em>," under the laws of France emancipated an American + slave—the case of Fulton, <i>vs.</i> Lewis, 3 Har. + and John's Reps., 56, where the slave of a St. Domingo slaveholder, who + brought him to Maryland in '93, was pronounced free by the Maryland Court of + Appeals—these, with other facts and cases "too numerous to mention," + are illustrations of the acknowledged truth here asserted, that by the consent + of the civilized world, and on the principles of universal law, slaves are not + "<i>property</i>," but + <i>self-proprietors</i>, and that whenever held as + property under <em>law</em>, it is only by <i>positive + legislative acts</i>, forcibly setting aside the law of nature, the + common law, and the principles of universal justice and right between man and + man,—principles paramount to all law, and from which alone law derives + its intrinsic authoritative sanction. + </p> + <p> + But waiving all concessions, whether of constitutions, laws, judicial + decisions, or common consent, I take the position that the power + of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, follows from the fact, + that as the sole legislature there, it has unquestionable power <em>to adopt + the Common Law, as the legal system within its exclusive jurisdiction</em>. + This has been done, with certain restrictions, in most of the States, + either by legislative acts or by constitutional implication. THE COMMON + LAW KNOWS NO SLAVES. Its principles annihilate slavery wherever + they touch it. It is a universal, unconditional, abolition act. + Wherever slavery is a legal system, it is so only by + <i>statute</i> law, and in violation of common law. + The declaration of Lord Chief Justice Holt, that "by the common law, no man + can have property in another," is an acknowledged axiom, and based upon the + well known common law definition of property. "The subjects of + dominion or property are <i>things</i>, as + contra-distinguished from <i>persons</i>." + Let Congress adopt the common law in the District of Columbia, and + slavery there is at once abolished. Congress may well be at home + + in common law legislation, for the common law is the grand element + of the United States Constitution. All its <em>fundamental</em> provisions + are instinct with its spirit; and its existence, principles and paramount + authority, are presupposed and assumed throughout the whole. The preamble + of the Constitution plants the standard of the Common Law + immovably in its foreground. "We, the people of the United States, + in order to ESTABLISH JUSTICE, &c., do ordain and establish this + Constitution;" thus proclaiming <em>devotion to justice</em>, as the + controlling motive in the organization of the Government, and its secure + establishment the chief object of its aims. By this most solemn recognition, + the common law, that grand legal embodiment of "<em>justice</em>" and + fundamental right was made the groundwork of the Constitution, and + intrenched behind its strongest munitions. The second clause of Sec. + 9, Art. 1; Sec. 4, Art. 2, and the last clause of Sec. 2, Art. 3, with + Articles 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the Amendments, are also express recognitions + of the common law as the presiding Genius of the Constitution. + + </p> + <p> + By adopting the common law within its exclusive jurisdiction Congress + would carry out the principles of our glorious Declaration, and + follow the highest precedents in our national history and jurisprudence. + It is a political maxim as old as civil legislation, that laws should + be strictly homogeneous with the principles of the government whose + will they express, embodying and carrying them out—being indeed + the <em>principles themselves</em>, in preceptive + form—representatives alike of the nature and the power of the + Government—standing illustrations of its genius and spirit, while they + proclaim and enforce its authority. Who needs be told that slavery is in + antagonism to the principles of the Declaration, and the spirit of the + Constitution, and that these and the principles of the common law gravitate + toward each other with irrepressible affinities, and mingle into one? The + common law came hither with our pilgrim fathers; it was their birthright, + their panoply, their glory, and their song of rejoicing in the house of their + pilgrimage. It covered them in the day of their calamity, and their trust + was under the shadow of its wings. From the first settlement of the + country, the genius of our institutions and our national spirit have + claimed it as a common possession, and exulted in it with a common + pride. A century ago, Governor Pownall, one of the most eminent + constitutional jurists of colonial times, said of the common law, "In + all the colonies the common law is received as the foundation and + main body of their law." In the Declaration of Rights, made by the + Continental Congress at its first session in '74, there was the following + resolution: "Resolved, That the respective colonies are entitled to the + common law of England, and especially to the great and inestimable + privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the + course of that law." Soon after the organization of the general government, + Chief Justice Ellsworth, in one of his decisions on the bench + of the United States Supreme Court, said: "The common law of this + country remains the same as it was before the revolution." Chief + Justice Marshall, in his decision in the case of Livingston + <i>vs.</i> Jefferson, + + said: "When our ancestors migrated to America, they brought with + them the common law of their native country, so far as it was applicable + to their new situation and I do not conceive that the revolution + in any degree changed the relations of man to man, or the law which + regulates them. In breaking our political connection with the parent + state, we did not break our connection with each other." [<em>See</em><em>Hall's Law Journal, new series.</em>] Mr. Duponceau, in his + "Dissertation on the Jurisdiction of Courts in the United States," says, "I + consider the common law of England the <i>jus + commune</i> of the United States. I think I can lay it down as a correct + principle, that the common law of England, as it was at the time of the + declaration of Independence, still continues to be the national law of this + country, so far as it is applicable to our present state, and subject to the + modifications it has received here in the course of nearly half a + century." Chief Justice Taylor of North Carolina, in his decision in + the case of the State <i>vs.</i> Reed, in 1823, Hawkes' + N.C. Reps. 454, says, "a law of <em>paramount obligation to the + statute</em> was violated by the offence—COMMON LAW, founded upon the + law of nature, and confirmed by revelation." The legislation of the United + States abounds in recognitions of the principles of the common law, asserting + their paramount binding power. Sparing details, of which our national + state papers are full, we illustrate by a single instance. It was made + a condition of the admission of Louisiana into the Union, that the right + of trial by jury should be secured to all her citizens,—the United + States government thus employing its power to enlarge the jurisdiction + of the common law in this its great representative. + + </p> + <p> + Having shown that the abolition of slavery is within the competency + of the law-making power, when unrestricted by constitutional + provisions, and that the legislation of Congress over the District + <em>is</em> thus unrestricted, its power to abolish slavery there is + established. + + </p> + <p> + Besides this general ground, the power of Congress to abolish + slavery in the District may be based upon another equally tenable. + We argue it from the fact, that slavery exists there <em>now</em> by an + act of Congress. In the act of 16th July, 1790, Congress accepted portions + of territory offered by the states of Maryland and Virginia, and + enacted that the laws, as they then were, should continue in force, + "until Congress shall otherwise by law provide;" thus making the + slave codes of Maryland and Virginia its own. Under these laws, + adopted by Congress, and in effect re-enacted and made laws of the + District, the slaves there are now held. + + </p> + <p> + Is Congress so impotent in its own "exclusive jurisdiction" that + it <em>cannot</em> "otherwise by law provide?" If it can say, what + <em>shall</em> be considered property, it can say what shall + <em>not</em> be considered property. Suppose a legislature enacts, that + marriage contracts shall be mere bills of sale, making a husband the + proprietor of his wife, as his <i>bona fide</i> + property; and suppose husbands should herd their wives in droves + for the market as beasts of burden, or for the brothel as victims of + lust, and then prate about their inviolable legal property, and deny + + the power of the legislature, which stamped them property, to undo + its own wrong, and secure to wives by law the rights of human beings. + Would such cant about "legal rights" be heeded where reason and + justice held sway, and where law, based upon fundamental morality, + received homage? If a frantic legislature pronounces woman a + chattel, has it no power, with returning reason, to take back the blasphemy? + Is the impious edict irrepealable? Be it, that with legal + forms it has stamped wives "wares." Can no legislation blot out the + brand? Must the handwriting of Deity on human nature be expunged + for ever? Has law no power to stay the erasing pen, and tear off + the scrawled label that covers up the IMAGE OF GOD? We now proceed + to show that + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E5pwruniv"></a> + THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN, TILL + RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED. + + </h3> + <p> + 1. It has been assumed by Congress itself. The following record + stands on the journals of the House of Representatives for 1804, p. + 225: "On motion made and seconded that the House do come to the + following resolution: 'Resolved, That from and after the 4th day of + July, 1805, all blacks and people of color that shall be born within + the District of Columbia, or whose mothers shall be the property of + any person residing within said District, shall be free, the males at + the age of ----, and the females at the age of ----. The main question + being taken that the House do agree to said motion as originally proposed, + it was negatived by a majority of 46.'" Though the motion + was lost, it was on the ground of its alleged <em>inexpediency</em> alone, + and not because Congress lacked the constitutional power. In the debate + which preceded the vote, the <em>power</em> of Congress was conceded. In + March, 1816, the House of Representatives passed the following + resolution:—"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into + the existence of an inhuman and illegal traffic in slaves, carried on in + and through the District of Columbia, and to report whether any and + what measures are necessary for <em>putting a stop to the same</em>." + + </p> + <p> + On the 9th of January, 1829, the House of Representatives passed + the following resolution by a vote of 114 to 66: "Resolved, That the + Committee on the District of Columbia be instructed to inquire into the + <em>expediency</em> of providing by <em>law</em> for the gradual + abolition of slavery within the District, in such manner that the interests of + no individual shall be injured thereby." Among those who voted in the + affirmative were Messrs. Barney of Md., Armstrong of Va., A.H. Shepperd of + N.C., Blair of Tenn., Chilton and Lyon of Ky., Johns of Delaware, + and others from slave states. + + </p> + <p> + 2. It has been conceded directly, or impliedly, by all the committees + on the District of Columbia that have reported on the subject. + In a report of the committee on the District, Jan. 11, 1837, by their + chairman, Mr. Powell of Virginia, there is the following declaration + "The Congress of the United States, has by the constitution exclusive + jurisdiction over the District, and has power upon this subject, + (<i>slavery</i>) + + as upon all other subjects of legislation, to exercise <em>unlimited + discretion</em>." Reps. of Comms. 2d Session, 19th Cong. v. I. No. 43. In + February, 1829, the committee on the District, Mr. Alexander of + Virginia, Chairman, in their report pursuant to Mr. Miner's resolutions, + recognize a contingent abolition proceeding upon the consent of + the people. In December, 1831, the committee on the District, Mr. + Doddridge of Virginia, Chairman, reported, "That until the adjoining + states act on the subject (slavery) it would be (not + <em>unconstitutional</em> but) unwise and impolitic, if not unjust, for + Congress to interfere." In April, 1836, a special committee on abolition + memorials reported the following resolutions by their Chairman, Mr. Pinckney + of South Carolina: "Resolved, that Congress possesses no constitutional + authority to interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any + of the states of this confederacy." + + </p> + <p> + "Resolved, That Congress <em>ought not to interfere</em> in any way with + slavery in the District of Columbia." "Ought not to interfere," carefully + avoiding the phraseology of the first resolution, and thus in effect + conceding the constitutional power. In a widely circulated "Address + to the electors of the Charleston District," Mr. Pinckney is thus denounced + by his own constituents: "He has proposed a resolution + which is received by the plain common sense of the whole country as + a concession that Congress has authority to abolish slavery in the + District of Columbia." + + </p> + <p> + 3. It has been conceded by the <em>citizens of the District</em>. A + petition for the gradual abolition of slavery in the District, signed by + nearly eleven hundred of its citizens, was presented to Congress, March 24, + 1837. Among the signers to this petition, were Chief Justice Cranch, + Judge Van Ness, Judge Morsel, Prof. J.M. Staughton, Rev. Dr. + Balch, Rev. Dr. Keith, John M. Munroe, and a large number of the + most influential inhabitants of the District. Mr. Dickson, of New + York, asserted on the floor of Congress in 1835, that the signers of + this petition owned more than half of the property in the District. + The accuracy of this statement has never been questioned. + + </p> + <p> + This power has been conceded by <em>grand juries of the District</em>. + The grand jury of the county of Alexandria, at the March term 1802, + presented the domestic slave trade as a grievance, and said, "We + consider these grievances demanding <em>legislative</em> redress." + Jan. 19, 1829, Mr. Alexander, of Virginia, presented a representation of the + grand jury in the city of Washington, remonstrating against "any + measure for the abolition of slavery within said District, unless accompanied + by measures for the removal of the emancipated from the + same;" thus, not only conceding the power to emancipate slaves, but + affirming an additional power, that of <em>excluding them when free</em>. + See Journal H.R. 1828-9, p. 174. + + </p> + <p> + 4. This power has been conceded <em>by State Legislatures</em>. In 1828 + the Legislature of Pennsylvania instructed their Senators in Congress + "to procure, if practicable, the passage of a law to abolish slavery + in the District of Columbia." Jan. 28, 1829, the House of Assembly + + of New York passed a resolution, that their "Senators in Congress + be instructed to make every possible exertion to effect the passage of + a law for the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia." In + February, 1837, the Senate of Massachusetts "Resolved, That Congress + having exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, possess + the right to abolish slavery and the slave trade therein, and that the + early exercise of such right is demanded by the enlightened sentiment + of the civilized world, by the principles of the revolution, and by humanity." + The House of Representatives passed the following resolution + at the same session: "Resolved, That Congress having exclusive + legislation in the District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish + slavery in said District, and that its exercise should only be restrained + by a regard to the public good." + + </p> + <p> + November 1, 1837, the Legislature of Vermont, "Resolved, that + Congress have the full power by the constitution to abolish slavery + and the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and in the territories." + The Legislature of Vermont passed in substance the same resolution, + at its session in 1836. + + </p> + <p> + May 30, 1836, a committee of the Pennsylvania Legislature reported + the following resolution: "Resolved, That Congress does possess + the constitutional power, and it is expedient to abolish slavery + and the slave trade within the District of Columbia." + + </p> + <p> + In January, 1836, the Legislature of South Carolina "Resolved, + That we should consider the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia + as a violation of the rights of the citizens of that District derived + from the <em>implied</em> conditions on which that territory was ceded to + the General Government." Instead of denying the constitutional power, + they virtually admit its existence, by striving to smother it under an + <em>implication</em>. In February, 1836, the Legislature of North Carolina + "Resolved, That, although by the Constitution all legislative power + over the District of Columbia is vested in the Congress of the United + States, yet we would deprecate any legislative action on the part of + that body towards liberating the slaves of that District, as a breach of + faith towards those States by whom the territory was originally ceded, + and will regard such interference as the first step towards a general + emancipation of the slaves of the South." Here is a full concession + of the <em>power</em>, February 2, 1836, the Virginia Legislature passed + unanimously the following resolution: "Resolved, by the General + Assembly of Virginia, that the following article be proposed to the + several states of this Union, and to Congress, as an amendment of the + Constitution of the United States: 'The powers of Congress shall not + be so construed as to authorize the passage of any law for the emancipation + of slaves in the District of Columbia, without the consent of + the individual proprietors thereof, unless by the sanction of the Legislatures + of Virginia and Maryland, and under such conditions as they + shall by law prescribe.'" + + </p> + <p> + Fifty years after the formation of the United States constitution the + states are solemnly called upon by the Virginia Legislature, to amend + + that instrument by a clause asserting that, in the grant to Congress of + "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District, the + "case" of slavery is not included!! What could have dictated such + a resolution but the conviction that the power to abolish slavery is an + irresistible interference from the constitution <em>as it is</em>. The + fact that the same legislature passed afterward a resolution, though by no + means unanimously, that Congress does not possess the power, abates + not a tittle of the testimony in the first resolution. March 23d, 1824, + "Mr. Brown presented the resolutions of the General Assembly of + Ohio, recommending to Congress the consideration of a system for + the gradual emancipation of persons of color held in servitude in + the United States." On the same day, "Mr. Noble, of Indiana, communicated + a resolution from the legislature of that state, respecting + the gradual emancipation of slaves within the United States." Journal + of the United States Senate, for 1824-5, p. 231. + + </p> + <p> + The Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the + <em>general</em> power of Congress over the subject of slavery, do + virtually assert its <em>special</em> power within its + <em>exclusive</em> jurisdiction. + + </p> + <p> + 5. The power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, has + been conceded by bodies of citizens in the slave states. The petition + of eleven hundred citizens of the District of Columbia, in 1827, has + been already mentioned. "March 5, 1830, Mr. Washington presented + a memorial of inhabitants of the county of Frederick, in the state + of Maryland, praying that provision may be made for the gradual abolition + of slavery in the District of Columbia." Journal H.R. 1829-30, + p. 358. + + </p> + <p> + March 30, 1828. Mr. A.H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, presented + a memorial of citizens of that state, "praying Congress to take + measures fur the entire abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia." + Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 379. + + </p> + <p> + January 14, 1822. Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, presented a memorial + of citizens of that state, praying "that provision may be made, + whereby all slaves which may hereafter be born in the District of Columbia, + shall be free at a certain period of their lives." Journal H.R. + 1821-22, p. 142. + + </p> + <p> + December 13, 1824. Mr. Saunders of North Carolina, presented + a memorial of citizens of that state, praying "that measures may + be taken for the gradual abolition of slavery in the United States." + Journal H.R. 1824-25, p. 27. + + </p> + <p> + December 16, 1828. "Mr. Barnard presented the memorial of the + American Convention for promoting the abolition of slavery, held in + Baltimore, praying that slavery may be abolished in the District of + Columbia." Journal U.S. Senate, 1828-29, p. 24. + + </p> + <p> + 6. Distinguished statesmen and jurists in the slaveholding states, + have conceded the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District. + The testimony of Messrs. Doddridge, Powell, and Alexander, of Virginia, + Chief Justice Cranch, and Judges Morsell and Van Ness, of the + District, has already been given. In the debate in Congress on the + + memorial of the Society of Friends, in 1790, Mr. Madison, in speaking + of the territories of the United States, explicitly declared, from his + own knowledge of the views of the members of the convention that + framed the constitution, as well as from the obvious import of its terms, + that in the territories "Congress have certainly the power to regulate + the subject of slavery." Congress can have no more power over the + territories than that of "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," + consequently, according to Mr. Madison, "it has certainly the power + to regulate the subject of slavery in the" <em>District</em>. In March, + 1816, John Randolph introduced a resolution for putting a stop to the domestic + slave trade within the District. December 12, 1827, Mr. Barney, + of Maryland, presented a memorial for abolition in the District, + and moved that it be printed. Mr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, objected + to the printing, but "expressly admitted the right of Congress + to grant to the people of the District any measures which they might + deem necessary to free themselves from the deplorable evil."—(See + letter of Mr. Claiborne, of Mississippi, to his constituents, published in + the Washington Globe, May 9, 1836.) The sentiments of Henry + Clay on the subject are well known. In a speech before the U.S. + Senate, in 1836, he declared the power of Congress to abolish slavery + in the District "unquestionable." Messrs. Blair, of Tennessee, Chilton, + Lyon, and Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, A.H. Shepperd, + of North Carolina, Messrs. Armstrong and Smyth, of Virginia, Messrs. + Dorsey, Archer, and Barney, of Maryland, and Johns, of Delaware, + with numerous others from slave states, have asserted the power of + Congress to abolish slavery in the District. In the speech of Mr. + Smyth, of Virginia, on the Missouri question, January 28, 1820, he + says on this point: "If the future freedom of the blacks is your real + object, and not a mere pretence, why do you not begin <em>here</em>? + Within the ten miles square, you have <em>undoubted power</em> to exercise + exclusive legislation. <em>Produce a bill to emancipate the slaves in the + District of Columbia</em>, or, if you prefer it, to emancipate those born + hereafter." + + </p> + <p> + To this may be added the testimony of the present Vice President + of the United States, Hon. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. In a + speech before the United States' Senate, February 1, 1820, (National + Intelligencer, April 29, 1820,) he says: "Congress has the express + power stipulated by the Constitution, to exercise exclusive legislation + over this District of ten miles square. Here slavery is sanctioned by + law. In the District of Columbia, containing a population of 30,000 + souls, and probably as many slaves as the whole territory of Missouri, + THE POWER OF PROVIDING FOR THEIR EMANCIPATION RESTS WITH + CONGRESS ALONE. Why, then, let me ask, Mr. President, why all this + sensibility—this commiseration—this heart-rending sympathy for the + slaves of Missouri, and this cold insensibility, this eternal apathy, + towards the slaves in the District of Columbia?" + + </p> + <p> + It is quite unnecessary to add, that the most distinguished northern + statesmen of both political parties, have always affirmed the power of + Congress to abolish slavery in the District. President Van Buren in + his letter of March 6, 1836, to a committee of gentlemen in North + + Carolina, says, "I would not, from the light now before me, feel myself + safe in pronouncing that Congress does not possess the power of + abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia." This declaration + of the President is consistent with his avowed sentiments touching the + Missouri question, on which he coincided with such men as Daniel D. + Tompkins, De Witt Clinton, and others, whose names are a + host.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE5_FN5"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE5_FN5"></a> It is + consistent also, with his recommendation in his late message on + the 5th of last month, in which, speaking of the District, he strongly + urges upon Congress "a thorough and careful revision of its local + government," speaks of the "entire dependence" of the people of the + District "upon Congress," recommends that a "uniform system of local + government" be adopted, and adds, that "although it was selected + as the seat of the General Government, the site of its public edifices, + the depository of its archives, and the residence of officers intrusted + with large amounts of public property, and the management of public + business, yet it never has been subjected to, or received, that + <em>special</em> and <em>comprehensive</em> legislation which these + circumstances peculiarly demanded." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE5_FN5"></a><a href="#FootE5_FN5">A</a>: Mr. Van Buren, when a member of the Senate of + New-York, voted for the following preamble and resolutions, which passed + unanimously:—Jan. 28th, 1820. "Whereas, the inhibiting the further + extension of slavery in the United States, is a subject of deep concern to + the people of this state: and whereas, we consider slavery as an evil much to + be deplored, and that <em>every constitutional barrier should be interposed + to prevent its further extension</em>: and that the constitution of the + United States <em>clearly gives congress the right</em> to require new + states, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States, to + <em>make the prohibition of slavery</em> a condition of their admission + into the Union: Therefore, + + + </p> + <p> + "Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our members of Congress + be requested, to oppose the admission as a state into the Union, of any + territory not comprised as aforesaid, without making <em>the prohibition of + slavery</em> therein an indispensable condition of admission." + </p> + <p> + The tenor of Senator Tallmadge's speech on the right of petition, + in the last Congress, and of Mr. Webster's on the reception of abolition + memorials, may be taken as universal exponents of the sentiments + of northern statesmen as to the power of Congress to abolish slavery + in the District of Columbia. + + </p> + <p> + After presenting this array of evidence, <em>direct testimony</em> to show + that the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, has always + till recently been <em>universally conceded</em>, is perhaps quite + superfluous. We subjoin; however, the following: + + </p> + <p> + The Vice-President of the United States in his speech on the Missouri + question, quoted above, after contending that the restriction of + slavery in Missouri would be unconstitutional, adds, "But I am at a + loss to conceive why gentlemen should arouse all their sympathies + upon this occasion, when they permit them to lie dormant upon the + same subject, in relation to other sections of country, in which THEIR + POWER COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED." Then follows immediately the + assertion of congressional power to abolish slavery in the District, as + + already quoted. In the speech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., also quoted + above, he declares the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the + District to be "UNDOUBTED." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Sutherland, of Pennsylvania, in a speech in the House of Representatives, + on the motion to print Mr. Pinckney's Report, is thus + reported in the Washington Globe, of May 9th, '36. "He replied to + the remark that the report conceded that Congress had a right to + legislate upon the subject in the District of Columbia, and said that + SUCH A RIGHT HAD NEVER BEEN, TILL RECENTLY, DENIED." + + </p> + <p> + The American Quarterly Review, published at Philadelphia, with + a large circulation and list of contributors in the slave states, holds + the following language in the September No. 1833, p. 55: "Under + this 'exclusive jurisdiction,' granted by the constitution, Congress has + power to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia. + It would hardly be necessary to state this as a distinct proposition, + had it not been occasionally questioned. The truth of the assertion, + however, is too obvious to admit of argument—and we believe + HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY PERSONS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE + CONSTITUTION." + + </p> + <p> + Finally—an explicit, and unexpected admission, that an + "<em>over-whelming majority</em>" of the <em>present</em> Congress + concede the power to abolish slavery in the District, has just been made by a + member of Congress from South Carolina, in a letter published in the + Charleston Mercury of Dec. 27, well known as the mouth-piece of Mr. Calhoun. + The following is an extract: + + </p> + <p> + "The time has arrived when we must have new guarantees under the constitution, + or the union must be dissolved. <em>Our views of the constitution are not + those of the majority. An overwhelming majority think that by the + constitution, Congress may abolish slavery in the District of + Columbia—may abolish the slave trade between the States; that is, it may + prohibit their being carried out of the State in which they are—and + prohibit it in all the territories, Florida among them. They think</em>, + NOT WITHOUT STRONG REASONS, <em>that the power of Congress extends to + all of these subjects</em>." + + </p> + <p> + In another letter, the same correspondent says: + + </p> + <p> + "<em>The fact is, it is vain to attempt</em>, AS THE CONSTITUTION IS NOW, + <em>to keep the question of slavery out of the halls of + Congress</em>,—until, by some decisive action, WE COMPEL SILENCE, or + <em>alter the constitution</em>, agitation and insult is our eternal fate + in the confederacy." + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E5obj"></a> + OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED. + + </h3> + <p> + We now proceed to notice briefly the main arguments that have + been employed in Congress and elsewhere against the power of Congress + to abolish slavery in the District. One of the most plausible, is + that "the conditions on which Maryland and Virginia ceded the District + to the United States, would be violated, if Congress should abolish + slavery there." The reply to this is, that Congress had no power to + <em>accept</em> a cession coupled with conditions restricting the power + given it by the constitution. Nothing short of a convention of the states, + and an alteration of the constitution, abridging its grant of power, + could have empowered Congress to accept a territory on any other + conditions than that of exercising "exclusive legislation, in all cases + whatsoever," over it. + + </p> + <p> + To show the futility of the objection, here follow the acts of cession. + The cession of Maryland was made in November, 1788, and + is as follows: "An act to cede to Congress a district of ten miles + square in this state for the seat of the government of the United States." + + </p> + <p> + "Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, that the + representatives of this state in the House of Representatives of the + Congress of the United States, appointed to assemble at New-York, + on the first Wednesday of March next, be, and they are hereby + authorized and required on the behalf of this state, to cede to the Congress + of the United States, any district in this state, not exceeding ten + miles square, which the Congress may fix upon, and accept for the + seat of government of the United States." Laws of Maryland, vol. + 2, chap. 46. + + </p> + <p> + The cession from Virginia was made by act of the Legislature of + that State on the 3d of December, 1788, in the following words: + + </p> + <p> + "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That a tract of country, + not exceeding ten miles square, or any lesser quantity, to be located + within the limits of the State, and in any part thereof, as Congress + may, by law, direct, shall be, and the same is hereby for ever ceded + and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, + in full and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil, + as of persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and + effect of the eighth section of the first article of the government of + the constitution of the United States." + + </p> + <p> + But were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act had + <em>none</em>. That part of the District therefore, which includes the + cities of Washington and Georgetown, can lay claim to nothing with + which to ward off the power of Congress. The Virginia act had this + proviso: "Sect. 2. Provided, that nothing herein contained, shall be + construed to vest in the United States any right of property in the + <em>soil</em>, or to affect the rights of individuals + <em>therein</em>, otherwise than the same + shall or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States." + + </p> + <p> + This specification touching the soil was merely definitive and explanatory + of that clause in the act of cession, "<em>full and absolute right.</em>" + Instead of restraining the power of Congress on + <i>slavery</i> and other subjects, it even gives it wider + scope; for exceptions to <em>parts</em> of a rule, give double + confirmation to those parts not embraced in the exceptions. If it was the + <em>design</em> of the proviso to restrict congressional action on the + subject of <i>slavery</i>, why is the <em>soil + alone</em> specified? As legal instruments are not paragons of economy in + words, might not "John Doe," out of his abundance, and without spoiling his + style, have afforded an additional word—at least a hint—that + slavery was + <em>meant</em>, though nothing was <em>said</em> about it? The subject + must have been too "delicate," even for the most distant allusion! The mystery + of silence is solved!! + + </p> + <p> + But again, Maryland and Virginia, in their acts of cession, declare + them to be "in pursuance of" that clause of the constitution which + gives to Congress "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over" + the ten miles square—thus, instead of <em>restricting</em> that + clause, both States gave an express and decided confirmation of it. Now, their + acts of cession either accorded with that clause of the constitution, + or they conflicted with it. If they conflicted with it, <em>accepting</em> + the cessions was a violation of the constitution. If they accorded, the + objector has already had his answer. The fact that Congress accepted + the cessions, proves that in its view their <em>terms</em> did not + conflict with the constitutional grant of "power to exercise exclusive + legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District." The inquiry whether + these acts of cession were consistent or inconsistent with the United + States constitution, is totally irrelevant to the question at issue. What + saith the CONSTITUTION? That is the question. Not, what saith Virginia, + or Maryland, or—equally to the point—John Bull! If Maryland + and Virginia had been the authorized interpreters of the constitution + for the Union, these acts of cession could hardly have been + magnified more than they were by Messrs. Garland and Wise in the + last Congress. A true understanding of the constitution can be had, + forsooth, only by holding it up in the light of Maryland and Virginia + legislation! + + </p> + <p> + We are told, again, that those States would not have ceded the + District if they had supposed the constitution gave Congress power + to abolish slavery in it. + + </p> + <p> + This comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They + <em>knew</em> the constitution. They were parties to it. They had sifted + it, clause by clause, in their State conventions. They had weighed its + words in the balance—they had tested them as by fire; and finally, + after long pondering, they <em>adopted</em> the constitution. And + <em>afterward</em>, self-moved, they ceded the ten miles square, and + declared the cession made "in pursuance of" that oft-cited clause, "Congress + shall have power to exercise exclusive legalisation in all cases whatsoever + over such District," &c. And now verily "they would not have ceded if + they had <em>supposed</em>!" &c. Cede it they <em>did</em>, and + "in full and absolute right both of soil and persons." Congress accepted the + cession—state power over the District ceased, and congressional power + over it commenced—and now, the sole question to be settled is, + <i>the amount of power over the District, lodged in Congress + by the constitution</i>. The constitution—the CONSTITUTION—that + is the point. Maryland and Virginia "suppositions" must be potent + suppositions, to abrogate a clause in the United States Constitution! That + clause either gives Congress power to abolish slavery in the District, or it + does <em>not</em>—and that point is to be settled, not by state + "suppositions," nor state usages, nor state legislation, but + <i>by the terms of the clause themselves</i>. + + </p> + <p> + Southern members of Congress, in the recent discussions, have conceded + the power of a contingent abolition in the District, by suspending + it upon the consent of the people. Such a doctrine from + <i>declaimers</i> like Messrs. Alford, of Georgia, and + Walker, of Mississippi, would excite no surprise; but that it should be + honored with the endorsement of such men as Mr. Rives and Mr. Calhoun, is + quite unaccountable. Are attributes of <em>sovereignty</em> mere creatures + of <em>contingency</em>? Is delegated <em>authority</em> mere + conditional <em>permission</em>? Is a <i>constitutional + power</i> to be exercised by those who hold it, only by popular + <em>sufferance</em>? Must it lie helpless at the pool of public sentiment, + waiting the gracious troubling of its waters? Is it a lifeless corpse, save + only when popular "consent" deigns to put breath into its nostrils? Besides, + if the consent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent + of the <em>whole</em> people must be had—not that of a majority, + however large. Majorities, to be authoritative, must be + <em>legal</em>—and a legal majority without legislative power, right + of representation, or even the electoral franchise, would be an anomaly. In + the District of Columbia, such a thing as a majority in a legal sense is + unknown to law. To talk of the power of a majority, or the will of a majority + there, is mere mouthing. A majority? Then it has an authoritative + will—and an organ to make it known—and an executive to carry it + into effect—Where are they? We repeat it—if the consent of the + people of the District be necessary, the consent of <em>every one</em> + is necessary—and <em>universal</em> consent will come only with the + Greek Kalends and a "perpetual motion." A single individual might thus + perpetuate slavery in defiance of the expressed will of a whole people. The + most common form of this fallacy is given by Mr. Wise, of Virginia, + in his speech, February 16, 1835, in which he denied the power of + Congress to abolish slavery in the District, unless the inhabitants + owning slaves petitioned for it!! Southern members of Congress at + the present session ring changes almost daily upon the same fallacy. + What! pray Congress <em>to use</em> a power which it <em>has not</em>? + "It is required of a man according to what he <em>hath</em>," saith the + Scripture. I commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would that he had got + his <em>logic</em> of him! If Congress does not possess the power, why + taunt it with its weakness, by asking its exercise? Why mock it by demanding + impossibilities? Petitioning, according to Mr. Wise, is, in matters of + legislation, omnipotence itself; the very source of all constitutional + power; for, <em>asking</em> Congress to do what it <em>cannot</em> do, + gives it the power—to pray the exercise of a power that is <em>not, + creates</em> it. A beautiful theory! Let us work it both ways. If to + petition for the exercise of a power that is <em>not</em>, creates + it—to petition against the exercise of a power that <em>is</em>, + annihilates it. As southern gentlemen are partial to summary processes, pray, + sirs, try the virtue of your own recipe on "exclusive legislation in all cases + whatsoever;" a better subject for experiment and test of the prescription + could not be had. But if the petitions of the citizens of the District give + Congress the <em>right</em> to abolish slavery, they impose the + <em>duty</em>; if they confer constitutional + + authority, they create constitutional obligation. If Congress <em>may</em> + abolish because of an expression of their will, it <em>must</em> abolish + at the bidding of that will. If the people of the District are a + <em>source of power</em> to Congress, their <em>expressed will</em> + has the force of a constitutional provision, and has the same binding power + upon the National Legislature. To make Congress dependent on the District for + authority, is to make it a <em>subject</em> of its authority, restraining + the exercise of its own discretion, and sinking it into a mere organ of the + District's will. We proceed to another objection. + + </p> + <p> + "The southern states would not have ratified the constitution, if + they had supposed that it gave this power." It is a sufficient answer + to this objection, that the northern states would not have ratified it, if + they had supposed that it <em>withheld</em> the power. If "suppositions" + are to take the place of the constitution—coming from both sides, they + neutralize each other. To argue a constitutional question by + <em>guessing</em> at the "suppositions" that might have been made by the + parties to it, would find small favor in a court of law. But even a desperate + shift is some easement when sorely pushed. If this question is to be settled + by "suppositions," suppositions shall be forth coming, and that without + stint. + + </p> + <p> + First, then, I affirm that the North ratified the constitution, "supposing" + that slavery had begun to wax old, and would speedily vanish + away, and especially that the abolition of the slave trade, which by the + constitution was to be surrendered to Congress after twenty years, + would cast it headlong. + + </p> + <p> + Would the North have adopted the constitution, giving three-fifths + of the "slave property" a representation, if it has "supposed" that + the slaves would have increased from half a million to two millions and + a half by 1838—and that the census of 1840 would give to the slave + states, 30 representatives of "slave property?" + + </p> + <p> + If they had "supposed" that this representation would have controlled + the legislation of the government, and carried against the + North every question vital to its interests, would Alexander Hamilton, + Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Elbridge Gerry, William + Livingston, John Langdon, and Rufus King have been such madmen, + as to sign the constitution, and the Northern States such suicides + as to ratify it? Every self-preserving instinct would have shrieked + at such an infatuate immolation. At the adoption of the United + States constitution, slavery was regarded as a fast waning system. + This conviction was universal. Washington, Jefferson, Patrick + Henry, Grayson, St. George Tucker, Madison, Wythe, Pendleton, + Lee, Blair, Mason, Page, Parker, Edmund Randolph, Iredell, Spaight, + Ramsey, William Pinckney, Luther Martin, James McHenry, Samuel + Chase, and nearly all the illustrious names south of the Potomac, + proclaimed it before the sun, that the days of slavery were beginning + to be numbered. A reason urged in the convention that formed the + United States constitution, why the word slave should not be used in + + it, was, that <em>when slavery should cease</em> there might remain upon + the National Charter no record that it had even been. (See speech of + Mr. Burrill, of R.I., on the Missouri question.) + + </p> + <p> + I now proceed to show by testimony, that at the date of the United + States constitution, and for several years before and after that + period, slavery was rapidly on the wane; that the American Revolution + with the great events preceding accompanying, and following + it, had wrought an immense and almost universal change in the public + sentiment of the nation of the subject, powerfully impelling it toward + the entire abolition of the system—and that it was the <em>general + belief</em> that measures for its abolition throughout the Union, would be + commenced by the individual States generally before the lapse of many + years. A great mass of testimony establishing this position is at + hand and might be presented, but narrow space, little time, the patience + of readers, and the importance of speedy publication, counsel + brevity. Let the following proofs suffice. First, a few dates as points + of observation. + + </p> + <p> + The first <em>general</em> Congress met in 1774. The revolutionary war + commenced in '75. Independence was declared in '76. The articles + of confederacy were adopted by the thirteen states in '78. Independence + acknowledged in '83. The convention for forming the U.S. + constitution was held in '87, the state conventions for considering + it in '87, and '88. The first Congress under the constitution in '89. + + </p> + <p> + Dr. Rush, of Pennsylvania, one of the signers of the Declaration + of Independence, in a letter to the celebrated Granville Sharpe, May + 1, 1773, says: "A spirit of humanity and religion begins to awaken + in several of the colonies in favor of the poor negroes. The clergy + begin to bear a public testimony against this violation of the laws of + nature and christianity. Great events have been brought about by + small beginnings. <em>Anthony Benezet stood alone a few years ago in + opposing negro slavery in Philadelphia</em>, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS OF + THE PROVINCE AS WELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST IT."—(Stuart's + Life of Sharpe, p. 21.) + + </p> + <p> + In the preamble to the act prohibiting the importation of slaves into + Rhode Island, June 1774, is the following: "Whereas, the inhabitants + of America are generally engaged in the preservation of their own + rights and liberties, among which that of personal freedom must be + considered the greatest, and as those who are desirous of enjoying all + the advantages of liberty themselves, <em>should be willing to extend + personal liberty to others</em>, therefore," &c. + + </p> + <p> + October 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: + "We, for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom + we represent, <em>firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of + virtue, honor, and love of our country</em>, as follows: + + </p> + <p> + "2d Article. <em>We will neither import nor purchase any slaves + imported</em> after the first day of December next, after which time we will + <em>wholly discontinue</em> the slave trade, and we will neither be + concerned + + in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities + or manufactures to those who are concerned in it." + + </p> + <p> + The Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and + the necessity for taking up arms, say: "<em>If it were possible</em> for + men who exercise their reason to believe that the Divine Author of our + existence intended a part of the human race <em>to hold an absolute + property in</em>, and <em>unbounded power over others</em>, marked out + by infinite goodness and wisdom as objects of a legal domination, never + rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these + colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some + evidence that this dreadful authority over them has been granted to + that body." + + </p> + <p> + In 1776, the celebrated Dr. Hopkins, then at the head of New England + divines, published a pamphlet entitled, "An Address to the + owners of negro slaves in the American colonies," from which the following + is an extract: "The conviction of the unjustifiableness of this + practice (slavery) has been <em>increasing</em>, and <em>greatly + spreading of late</em>, and <em>many</em> who have had slaves, have + found themselves so unable to justify their own conduct in holding them in + bondage, as to be induced to <em>set them at liberty</em>. May this + conviction soon reach every owner of slaves in <em>North America!</em> + Slavery is, <em>in every instance</em>, wrong, + unrighteous, and oppressive—a very great and crying + sin—<em>there being nothing of the kind equal to it on the face + of the earth.</em>" + + </p> + <p> + The same year the American Congress issued a solemn MANIFESTO + to the world. These were its first words: "We hold these truths to + be self-evident, that <em>all</em> men are created equal, that they are + endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these + are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." <em>Once</em>, these + were words of power; <em>now</em>, "a rhetorical flourish." + + </p> + <p> + The celebrated Patrick Henry of Virginia, in a letter, of Jan. 18, + 1773, to Robert Pleasants, afterwards president of the Virginia Abolition + Society, says: "Believe me, I shall honor the Quakers for their + noble efforts to abolish slavery. It is a debt we owe to the purity of + our religion to show that it is at variance with that law that warrants + slavery. I exhort you to persevere in so worthy a resolution." + + </p> + <p> + In 1779, the Continental Congress ordered a pamphlet to be published, + entitled, "Observations on the American Revolution," from + which the following is an extract: "The great principle (of government) + is and ever will remain in force, <em>that men are by nature free</em>; + as accountable to him that made them, they must be so; and so long + as we have any idea of divine <em>justice</em>, we must associate that of + <em>human freedom</em>. Whether men can part with their liberty, is among + the questions which have exercised the ablest writers; but it is + <em>conceded on all hands, that the right to be free</em> CAN NEVER BE + ALIENATED—still less is it practicable for one generation to mortgage + the privileges of another." + + </p> + <p> + Extract from the Pennsylvania act for the Abolition of Slavery, + passed March 1, 1780: * * * "We conceive that it is our duty, + and we rejoice that it is in our power, to extend a portion of that freedom + to others which has been extended to us. Weaned by a long + course of experience from those narrow prejudices and partialities we + have imbibed, we find our hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence + towards men of all conditions and nations: * * * Therefore + be it enacted, that no child born hereafter be a slave," &c. + + </p> + <p> + Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, written just before the close of + the Revolutionary War, says: "I think a change already perceptible + since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is + abating, that of the slave is rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, + <em>the way I hope preparing under the auspices of heaven</em>, FOR A + TOTAL EMANCIPATION, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to + be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation." + + </p> + <p> + In a letter to Dr. Price, of London, who had just published a + pamphlet in favor of the abolition of slavery, Mr. Jefferson, then Minister + at Paris, (August 7, 1785,) says: "From the mouth to the head of the + Chesapeake, <em>the bulk of the people will approve of your pamphlet + in theory</em>, and it will find a respectable minority ready to + <em>adopt it in practice</em>—a minority which, for weight and + worth of character, <em>preponderates against the greater number</em>." + Speaking of Virginia, he says: "This is the next state to which we may turn + our eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice and + oppression,—a conflict in which THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING DAILY + RECRUITS. Be not, therefore discouraged—what you have written will do + a <em>great deal of good</em>; and could you still trouble yourself with + our welfare, no man is more able to give aid to the laboring side. The College + of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, since the remodelling of its plan, + is the place where are collected together all the young men of Virginia, + under preparation for public life. They are there under the direction + (most of them) of a Mr. Wythe, one of the most virtuous of characters, + and <em>whose sentiments on the subject of slavery are unequivocal</em>. + I am satisfied, if you could resolve to address an exhortation to those + young men with all the eloquence of which you are master that <em>its + influence on the future decision of this important question would be great, + perhaps decisive</em>. Thus, you see, that so far from thinking you have + cause to repent of what you have done, <em>I wish you to do more, and wish + it on an assurance of its effect</em>."—Jefferson's Posthumous Works, + vol. 1, p. 268. + + </p> + <p> + In 1786, John jay, afterward Chief Justice of the United States, + drafted and signed a petition to the Legislature of New York, on the + subject of slavery, beginning with these words: + + </p> + <p> + "Your memorialists being deeply affected by the situation of those, + who, although FREE BY THE LAWS OF GOD, are held in slavery by the + laws of the State," &c. + + </p> + <p> + This memorial bore also the signature of the celebrated Alexander + Hamilton; Robert R. Livingston, afterward Secretary of Foreign + + Affairs of the United States, and Chancellor of the State of + New York; James Duane, Mayor of the City of New York, and + many others of the most eminent individuals in the State. + + </p> + <p> + In the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated + a slave in 1784, is the following passage: + + </p> + <p> + "Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and + cannot, without injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery." + + </p> + <p> + In his letter while Minister at Spain, in 1786, he says, speaking + of the abolition of slavery: "Till America comes into this measure, + her prayers to heaven will be IMPIOUS. This is a strong expression, + but it is just. I believe God governs the world; and I believe it to + be a maxim in his, as in our court, that those who ask for equity + <em>ought to do it</em>." + + </p> + <p> + In 1785, the New York Manumission Society was formed. + John Jay was chosen its first President, and held the office five + years. Alexander Hamilton was its second President, + and after holding the office one year, resigned upon his removal to + Philadelphia as Secretary of the United States' Treasury. In 1787, the + Pennsylvania Abolition Society was formed. Benjamin Franklin, warm from + the discussions of the convention that formed the United States constitution, + was chosen President, and Benjamin Rush, Secretary—both signers of the + Declaration of Independence. In 1789, the Maryland Abolition Society was + formed. Among its officers were Samuel Chace, Judge of the United States + Supreme Court, and Luther Martin, a member of the convention that formed the + United States constitution. In 1790, the Connecticut Abolition Society was + formed. The first President was Rev. Dr. Stiles, President of Yale College, + and the Secretary, Simeon Baldwin, (the late Judge Baldwin of New + Haven.) In 1791, this Society sent a memorial to Congress, from + which the following is an extract: + + </p> + <p> + "From a sober conviction of the unrighteousness of slavery, your + petitioners have long beheld, with grief, our fellow men doomed to + perpetual bondage, in a country which boasts of her freedom. Your + petitioners are fully of opinion, that calm reflection will at last convince + the world, that the whole system of African slavery is unjust + in its nature—impolitic in its principles—and, in its + consequences, ruinous to the industry and enterprise of the citizens of these + States. From a conviction of these truths, your petitioners were led, by + motives, we conceive, of general philanthropy, to associate ourselves + for the protection and assistance of this unfortunate part of our fellow + men; and, though this Society has been <em>lately</em> established, it has + now become <em>generally extensive</em> through this state, and, we fully + believe, <em>embraces, on this subject, the sentiments of a large majority + of its citizens</em>." + + </p> + <p> + The same year the Virginia Abolition Society was formed. This + Society, and the Maryland Society, had auxiliaries in different parts + of those States. Both societies sent up memorials to Congress. The + memorial of the Virginia Society is headed—"The memorial of the + <em>Virginia Society</em>, for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, + &c." The following is an extract: + + </p> + <p> + "Your memorialists, fully believing that 'righteousness exalteth + a nation,' and that slavery is not only an odious degradation, but an + <em>outrageous violation of one of the most essential rights of human + nature, and utterly repugnant to the precepts of the gospel</em>, which + breathes 'peace on earth, good will to men;' lament that a practice, so + inconsistent with true policy and the inalienable rights of men, should + subsist in so enlightened an age, and among a people professing, that + all mankind are, by nature, equally entitled to freedom." + + </p> + <p> + About the same time a Society was formed in New-Jersey. It + had an acting committee of five members in each county in the State. + The following is an extract from the preamble to its constitution: + + </p> + <p> + "It is our boast, that we live under a government founded on + principles of justice and reason, wherein <em>life, liberty</em>, and the + <em>pursuit of happiness</em>, are recognised as the universal rights of + men; and whilst we are anxious to preserve these rights to ourselves, and + transmit them inviolate, to our posterity, we <em>abhor that inconsistent, + illiberal, and interested policy, which withholds those rights, from an + unfortunate and degraded class of our fellow creatures</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Among other distinguished individuals who were efficient officers + of these Abolition Societies, and delegates from their respective state + societies, at the annual meetings of the American convention for promoting + the abolition of slavery, were Hon. Uriah Tracy, United + States' Senator, from Connecticut; Hon. Zephaniah Swift, Chief Justice + of the same State; Hon. Cesar A. Rodney, Attorney General of + the United States; Hon. James A. Bayard, United States Senator, from + Delaware; Governor Bloomfield, of New Jersey; Hon. Wm. Rawle, + the late venerable head of the Philadelphia bar; Dr. Casper Wistar, + of Philadelphia; Messrs. Foster and Tillinghast, of Rhode Island; + Messrs. Ridgeley, Buchanan, and Wilkinson, of Maryland; and + Messrs. Pleasants, McLean, and Anthony, of Virginia. + + </p> + <p> + In July, 1787, the old Congress passed the celebrated ordinance, + abolishing slavery in the northwestern territory, and declaring that + it should never thereafter exist there. This ordinance was passed + while the convention that formed the United States constitution was + in session. At the first session of Congress under the constitution, + this ordinance was ratified by a special act. Washington, fresh from + the discussions of the convention, in which <em>more than forty days had + been spent in adjusting the question of slavery, gave it his approval.</em> + The act passed with only one dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of + New-York,) <em>the South equally with the North avowing the fitness and + expediency of the measure of general considerations, and indicating + thus early the line of national policy, to be pursued by the United + States Government on the subject of slavery</em>. + + </p> + <p> + In the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, + afterward a Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, + "<em>When the entire abolition of slavery takes place</em>, it will be an + event + + which must be pleasing to every generous mind and every friend + of human nature." Mr. Galloway said, "I wish to see this abominable + trade put an end to. I apprehend the clause (touching the slave trade) means + to <em>bring forward manumission."</em> Luther Martin, of Md., a member + of the convention that formed the United States constitution, said, "We ought + to authorize the General Government to make such regulations as shall be + thought most advantageous for <em>the gradual abolition of slavery,</em> + and the <em>emancipation of the slaves</em> which are already in the + States." Judge Wilson, of Pennsylvania, one of the framers of the + constitution, said, in the Pennsylvania convention of '87, Deb. Pa. Con. + p. 303, 156: "I consider this (the clause relative to the slave trade) as + laying the foundation for <em>banishing slavery out of this country</em>. + It will produce the same kind of gradual change which was produced in + Pennsylvania; the new states which are to be formed will be under the control + of Congress in this particular, and <em>slaves will never be + introduced</em> among them. It presents us with the pleasing prospect that + the rights of mankind will be acknowledged and established + <em>throughout the Union</em>. Yet the lapse of a few years, and Congress + will have power to <em>exterminate slavery</em> within our borders." + In the Virginia convention of '87, Mr. Mason, author of the Virginia + constitution, said, "The augmentation of slaves weakens the States, + and such a trade is <em>diabolical</em> in itself, and disgraceful to + mankind. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the + southern states, (i.e., South Carolina and Georgia,) into the union, + <em>unless they agree to a discontinuance of this disgraceful trade.</em>" + Mr. Tyler opposed with great power the clause prohibiting the abolition + of the slave trade till 1808, and said, "My earnest desire is, that + it shall he handed down to posterity that I oppose this wicked clause." + Mr. Johnson said, "The principle of emancipation <em>has begun since + the revolution. Let us do what we will, it will come + round.</em>"—[<em>Deb. Va. Con.</em> p. 463.] Patrick Henry, + arguing the power of Congress under the United States constitution to abolish + slavery in the States, said, in the same convention, "Another thing will + contribute to bring this event (the abolition of slavery) about. Slavery is + <em>detested.</em> We feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the + pity of humanity."—[<em>Deb. Va. Con.</em> p. 431.] In the Mass. + Con. of '88, Judge Dawes said, "Although slavery is not smitten by an + apoplexy, yet <em>it has received a mortal wound</em>, and will die of + consumption."—[<em>Deb. Mass. Con.</em> p. 60.] General Heath + said that, "Slavery was confined to the States <em>now existing, it could + not be extended</em>. By their ordinance, Congress had declared that the new + States should be republican States, and <em>have no + slavery.</em>"—p. 147. + + </p> + <p> + In the debate in the first Congress, February 11th and 12th, 1789, + on the petitions of the Society of Friends, and the Pennsylvania Abolition + Society, Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said, "I hope, Mr. Speaker, the + petition of these respectable people will be attended to <em>with all the + readiness the importance of its object demands</em>; and I cannot help + expressing the pleasure I feel in finding <em>so considerable a part</em> + of the + + community attending to matters of such a momentous concern to the + <em>future prosperity</em> and happiness of the people of America. I think + it my duty, as a citizen of the Union, <em>to espouse their cause</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Page, of Virginia, (afterward Governor)—"Was <em>in favor</em> + of the commitment; he hoped that the designs of the respectable memorialists + would not be stopped at the threshold, in order to preclude a + fair discussion of the prayer of the memorial. With respect to the + alarm that was apprehended, he conjectured there was none; but there + might be just cause, if the memorial was <em>not</em> taken into + consideration. He placed himself in the case of a slave, and said, that on + hearing that Congress had refused to listen to the decent suggestions of a + respectable part of the community, he should infer, that the general + government, <em>from which was expected great good would result to</em> + EVERY CLASS <em>of citizens</em>, had shut their ears against the voice of + humanity, and he should despair of any alleviation of the miseries he and his + posterity had in prospect; if any thing could induce him to rebel, it must be + a stroke like this, impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. + But if he was told, that application was made in his behalf, and that + Congress were willing to hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging + the practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their justice + and humanity, and <em>wait the decision patiently</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania: "I cannot, for my part, conceive how + any person <em>can be said to acquire a property in another</em>; but + enough of those who reduce men to the state of transferable goods, or use + them like beasts of burden, who deliver them up as the property or + patrimony of another man. Let us argue on principles countenanced + by reason, and becoming humanity. <em>I do not know how far I might + go, if I was one of the judges of the United States, and those people + were to come before me and claim their emancipation, but I am sure + I would go as far as I could</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, "He <em>saw the disposition of the + House</em>, and he feared it would be referred to a committee, maugre all + their opposition." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, said, "That on entering into this government, + they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that the other + states, not knowing the necessity the citizens of the Southern states + were under to hold this species of property, <em>would, from motives of + humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general emancipation</em>; + and had they not seen, that the constitution provided against the effect + of such a disposition, I may be bold to say, they never would have + adopted it." + + </p> + <p> + In the debate, at the same session, May 13th, 1789, on the petition + of the Society of Friends respecting the slave trade, Mr. Parker, + of Virginia, said, "He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their + power to <em>restore to human nature its inherent privileges</em>, and if + possible, wipe off the stigma, which America labored under. The inconsistency + in our principles, with which we are justly charged <em>should be + done away</em>, that we may show by our actions the pure beneficence of + + the doctrine we held out to the world in our Declaration of Independence." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Jackson of Georgia, said, "IT WAS THE FASHION OF THE DAY + TO FAVOR THE LIBERTY OF THE SLAVES. * * * * * What is + to be done for compensation? Will Virginia set all her negroes free? + Will they give up the money they have cost them; and to whom? + <em>When this practice comes to be tried, then the sound of liberty will + lose those charms which make it grateful to the ravished ear</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Madison of Virginia,—"The dictates of humanity, the principles + of the people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent policy, + require it of us. The constitution has particularly called our attention + to it. * * * * * I conceive the constitution + in this particular was formed in order that the Government, whilst it + was restrained from having a total prohibition, might be able to <em>give + some testimony of the sense of America</em>, with respect to the African + trade. * * * * * It is to be hoped, that by expressing a + national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves + from reproaches, AND OUR POSTERITY THE IMBECILITY EVER + ATTENDANT ON A COUNTRY FILLED WITH SLAVES. I do not wish to + say any thing harsh to the hearing of gentlemen who entertain different + sentiments from me, or different sentiments from those I represent. + But if there is any one point in which it is clearly the policy of this + nation, so far as we constitutionally can, <em>to vary the practice</em> + obtaining under some of the state governments, it is this. But it is + <em>certain</em> a majority of the states are <em>opposed to this + practice</em>."—[Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.] + + </p> + <p> + A writer in the "Gazette of the United States," Feb. 20th, 1790, + (then the government paper,) who opposes the abolition of slavery, and avows + himself a <em>slaveholder</em>, says, "I have seen in the papers accounts + of <em>large associations</em>, and applications to Government for + <em>the abolition of slavery</em>. Religion, humanity, and the generosity + natural to a free people, are the <em>noble principles which dictate those + measures</em>. SUCH MOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM + WORDS CAN BESTOW." + + </p> + <p> + It is well known, that in the convention that formed the constitution + of Kentucky in 1780, the effort to prohibit slavery was nearly + successful. The writer has frequently heard it asserted in Kentucky, + and has had it from some who were members of that convention, that + a decided majority of that body would have voted for its exclusion + but for the great efforts and influence of two large slaveholders—men + of commanding talents and sway—Messrs. Breckenridge and Nicholas. + The following extract from a speech made in that convention + by a member of it, Mr. Rice, a native Virginian, is a specimen of + the <em>free discussion</em> that prevailed on that "delicate subject." + Said Mr. Rice: "I do a man greater injury, when I deprive him of his + liberty, than when I deprive him of his property. It is vain for me + to plead that I have the sanction of law; for this makes the injury + the greater—it arms the community against him, and makes his case + + desperate. The owners of such slaves then are <em>licensed robbers</em>, + and not the just proprietors of what they claim. Freeing them is not + depriving them of property, but <em>restoring it to the right owner</em>. + In America, a slave is a standing monument of the tyranny and inconsistency + of human governments. The master is the enemy of the slave; he <em>has made + open war upon him</em>, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT ON in unremitted efforts. + Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is indebted to his master, and + <em>bound to serve him</em>? Whence can the obligation arise? What is it + founded upon? What is my duty to an enemy that is carrying on war against me? + I do not deny, but in some circumstances, it is the duty of the slave to + serve; but it is a duty he owes himself, and not his master." + + </p> + <p> + President Edwards, the younger, said, in a sermon preached before + the Connecticut Abolition Society, Sept. 15, 1791: "Thirty years + ago, scarcely a man in this country thought either the slave trade or + the slavery of negroes to be wrong; but now how many and able + advocates in private life, in our legislatures, in Congress, have + appeared, and have openly and irrefragably pleaded the rights of + humanity in this as well as other instances? And if we judge of the + future by the past, <em>within fifty years from this time, it will be as + shameful for a man to hold a negro slave, as to be guilty of common + robbery or theft</em>." + + </p> + <p> + In 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted + its "Scripture proofs," notes, comments, &c. Among these was the + following: + + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + "1 Tim. i. 10. The law is made for manstealers. This crime + among the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment. + Exodus xxi. 16. And the apostle here classes them with <em>sinners of + the first rank</em>. The word he uses, in its original import comprehends + all who are concerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, + or in <em>retaining</em> them in it. <em>Stealers of men</em> are all + those who bring off slaves or freemen, and <em>keep</em>, sell, or buy + them." + + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + In 1794, Dr. Rush declared: "Domestic slavery is repugnant to + the principles of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just + principle of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the + authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent + and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of + the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe, who has + solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men." + + </p> + <p> + In 1795, Mr. Fiske, then an officer of Dartmouth College, afterward + a Judge in Tennessee, said, in an oration published that year, + speaking of slaves: "I steadfastly maintain, that we must bring them + to <em>an equal standing, in point of privileges, with the whites</em>! + They must enjoy all the rights belonging to human nature." + + </p> + <p> + When the petition on the abolition of the slave trade was under discussion + in the Congress of '89, Mr. Brown. of North Carolina, said, + "The emancipation of the slaves <em>will be effected</em> in time; it + ought to be a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not + <em>precipitate</em> + it to the great injury of the southern States." Mr. Hartley, of + Pennsylvania said, in the sane debate, "<em>He was not a little surprised + to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house.</em>" WASHINGTON, + in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, says, "There are, in Pennsylvania, + laws for the gradual abolition of slavery which neither Maryland nor + Virginia have at present, but which <em>nothing is more certain</em> than + that they <em>must have</em>, and at a period NOT REMOTE." In 1782, + Virginia passed her celebrated manumission act. Within nine years from that + time nearly eleven thousand slaves were voluntarily emancipated by + their masters. Judge Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery," p. 72. In + 1787, Maryland passed an act legalizing manumission. Mr. Dorsey, + of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, December 27th, 1826, speaking + of manumissions under that act, said, that "<em>The progress of + emancipation was astonishing</em>, the State became crowded with a free + black population." + + </p> + <p> + The celebrated William Pinkney, in a speech before the Maryland + House of Delegates, in 1789, on the emancipation of slaves, said, + "Sir, by the eternal principles of natural justice, <em>no master in the + state has a right to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour</em>. + I would as soon believe the incoherent tale of a schoolboy, who should + tell me he had been frightened by a ghost, as that the grant of this + permission (to emancipate) ought in any degree to alarm us. Are + we apprehensive that these men will become more dangerous by becoming + freemen? Are we alarmed, lest by being admitted into the + enjoyment of civil rights, they will be inspired with a deadly enmity + against the rights of others? Strange, unaccountable paradox! How + much more rational would it be, to argue that the natural enemy of + the privileges of a freeman, is he who is robbed of them himself! + Dishonorable to the species is the idea that they would ever prove injurious + to our interests—released from the shackles of slavery, by the + justice of government and the bounty of individuals—the want of fidelity + and attachment would be next to impossible." + + </p> + <p> + Hon. James Campbell, in an address before the Pennsylvania Society + of the Cincinnati, July 4, 1787, said, "Our separation from + Great Britain has extended the empire of <em>humanity</em>. The time + <em>is not far distant</em> when our sister states, in imitation of our + example, <em>shall turn their vassals into freemen.</em>" The Convention + that formed the United States' constitution being then in session, attended at + the delivery of this oration with General Washington at their head. + + </p> + <p> + A Baltimore paper of September 8th, 1780, contains the following + notice of Major General Gates: "A few days ago passed through + this town the Hon. General Gates and lady. The General, previous + to leaving Virginia, summoned his numerous family of slaves about + him, and amidst their tears of affection and gratitude, gave them their + FREEDOM." + + </p> + <p> + In 1791 the university of William and Mary, in Virginia, conferred + upon Granville Sharpe the degree of Doctor of Laws. Sharpe was + at that time the acknowledged head of British abolitionists. His indefatigable + + exertions, prosecuted for years in the case of Somerset, + procured that memorable decision in the Court of King's Bench, which + settled the principle that no slave could be held in England. He was + most uncompromising in his opposition to slavery, and for twenty + years previous he had spoken, written, and accomplished more against + it than any man living. + + </p> + <p> + In the "Memoirs of the Revolutionary War in the Southern + Department," by Gen. Lee, of Va., Commandant of the Partizan Legion, + is the following: "The Constitution of the United States, adopted + lately with so much difficulty, has effectually provided against this + evil, (by importation) after a few years. It is much to be lamented + that having done so much in this way, <em>a provision had not been made + for the gradual abolition of slavery</em>."—p. 233, 4. + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, Judge of the Supreme Court of that state, + and professor of law in the University of William and Mary, + addressed a letter to the General Assembly of that state, in 1796, urging + the abolition of slavery; from which the following is an extract. + Speaking of the slaves in Virginia, he says: "Should we not, at the + time of the revolution, have loosed their chains and broken their + fetters; or if the difficulties and dangers of such an experiment + prohibited the attempt, during the convulsions of a revolution, is it not + our duty, <em>to embrace the first moment</em> of constitutional health + and vigor to effectuate so desirable an object, and to remove from us a + stigma with which our enemies will never fail to upbraid us, nor + consciences to reproach us?" + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Faulkner, in a speech before the Virginia Legislature, Jan. + 20, 1832, said:—"The idea of a gradual emancipation and removal of + the slaves from this commonwealth, is coeval with the declaration of our + independence from the British yoke. It sprung into existence + during the first session of the General Assembly, subsequent to the + formation of your republican government. When Virginia stood + sustained in her legislation by the pure and philosophic intellect of + Pendleton—by the patriotism of Mason and Lee—by the searching + vigor and sagacity of Wythe, and by the all-embracing, all-comprehensive + genius of Thomas Jefferson! Sir, it was a committee composed of + those five illustrious men, who, in 1777, submitted to the general + assembly of this state, then in session, <em>a plan for the gradual + emancipation of the slaves of this commonwealth</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Hon. Benjamin Watkins Leigh, late United States' senator from + Virginia, in his letters to the people of Virginia, in 1832, signed + Appomattox, p. 43, says: "I thought, till very lately, that it was known + to every body that during the Revolution, <em>and for many years after, + the abolition of slavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest + statesmen</em>, who entertained, with respect, all the schemes which + wisdom or ingenuity could suggest for accomplishing the object. + Mr. Wythe, to the day of his death, <em>was for a simple abolition, + considering the objection to color as founded in prejudice</em>. By degrees, + all + + projects of the kind were abandoned. Mr. Jefferson <em>retained</em> his + opinion, and now we have these projects revived." + + </p> + <p> + Governor Barbour, of Virginia, in his speech in the U.S. Senate, + on the Missouri question, Jan. 1820, said:—"We are asked why has + Virginia <em>changed her policy</em> in reference to slavery? That the + sentiments <em>of our most distinguished men</em>, for thirty years + <em>entirely corresponded</em> with the course which the friends of the + restriction (of slavery in Missouri) now advocated; and that the Virginia + delegation, one of which was the late President of the United Stance, voted + for the restriction, (of slavery) in the northwestern territory, and that + Mr. Jefferson has delineated a gloomy picture of the baneful effects + of slavery. When it is recollected that the Notes of Mr. Jefferson + were written during the progress of the revolution, it is no matter of + surprise that the writer should have imbibed a large portion of that + enthusiasm which such an occasion was so well calculated to produce. + As to the consent of the Virginia delegation to the restriction in + question, whether the result of a disposition to restrain the slave trade + indirectly, or the influence of that <em>enthusiasm</em> to which I have + just alluded, * * * * it is not now important to decide. We have + witnessed its effects. The liberality of Virginia, or, as the result may + prove, her folly, which submitted to, or, if you will, PROPOSED + <em>this measure</em>, (abolition of slavery in the N.W. territory) has + eventuated in effects which speak a monitory lesson. <em>How is the + representation from this quarter on the present question?</em>" + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Imlay, in his early history of Kentucky, p. 185, says: "We + have disgraced the fair face of humanity, and trampled upon the sacred + privileges of man, at the very moment that we were exclaiming + against the tyranny of your (the English) ministry. But in contending + for the birthright of freedom, we have learned to feel <em>for the bondage + of others</em>, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, + we <em>contemplate an emancipation of the slaves of this country</em>, as + honorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us." + + </p> + <p> + In the debate in Congress, Jan. 20, 1806, on Mr. Sloan's motion to + lay a tax on the importation of slaves, Mr. Clark of Va. said: "He + was no advocate for a system of slavery." Mr. Marion, of S. Carolina, + said: "He never had purchased, nor should he ever purchase a + slave." Mr. Southard said: "Not revenue, but an expression of + the <em>national sentiment</em> is the principal object." Mr. + Smilie—"I rejoice that the word (slave) is not in the Constitution; its + not being there does honor to the worthies who would not suffer it to become a + <em>part</em> of it." Mr. Alston, of N. Carolina—"In two years we + shall have the power to prohibit the trade altogether. Then this House + will be UNANIMOUS. No one will object to our exercising our full + constitutional powers." National Intelligencer, Jany. 24, 1806. + + </p> + <p> + These witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit—nor their + testimony comments to make it intelligible—their <em>names</em> are + their <em>endorsers</em> and their strong words their own interpreters. + We wave all comments. + + Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to <em>hear</em>, let + him HEAR. And whosoever will not hear the fathers of the revolution, + the founders of the government, its chief magistrates, judges, legislators + and sages, who dared and periled all under the burdens, and + in the heat of the day that tried men's souls—then "neither will he + be persuaded though THEY rose from the dead." + + </p> + <p> + Some of the points established by the testimony are—The universal + expectation that the <em>moral</em> influence of Congress, of state + legislatures, of seminaries of learning, of churches, of the ministers of + religion, and of public sentiment widely embodied in abolition societies, + would be exerted against slavery, calling forth by argument and appeal + the moral sense of the nation, and creating a power of opinion + that would abolish the system throughout the union. In a word, that + free speech and a free press would be wielded against slavery without + ceasing and without restriction. Full well did the south know, not + only that the national government would probably legislate against + slavery wherever the constitution placed it within its reach, but she + knew also that Congress had already marked out the line of national + policy to be pursued on the subject—had committed itself before the + world to a course of action against slavery, wherever she could move + upon it without encountering a conflicting jurisdiction—that the nation + had established by solemn ordinance memorable precedent for + subsequent action, by abolishing slavery in the northwest territory, + and by declaring that it should never thenceforward exist there; and this + too, as soon as by cession of Virginia and other states, the territory came + under Congressional control. The south knew also that the sixth article + in the ordinance prohibiting slavery was first proposed by the largest + slaveholding state in the confederacy—that the chairman of the committee + that reported the ordinance was a slaveholder—that the ordinance + was enacted by Congress during the session of the convention + that formed the United States Constitution—that the provisions of the + ordinance were, both while in prospect, and when under discussion, + matters of universal notoriety and <em>approval</em> with all parties, and + when finally passed, received the vote <em>of every member of Congress from + each of the slaveholding states</em>. The south also had every reason for + believing that the first Congress under the constitution would + <em>ratify</em> that ordinance—as it <em>did</em> unanimously. + + </p> + <p> + A crowd of reflections, suggest by the preceding testimony, + press for utterance. The right of petition ravished and trampled by + its constitutional guardians, and insult and defiance hurled in the faces of + the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE while calmly remonstrating <em>with their</em> + SERVANTS for violence committed on the nation's charter and their own dearest + rights! Add to this "the right of peaceably assembling" violently + wrested—the rights of minorities, <em>rights</em> no + longer—free speech struck dumb—free <em>men</em> outlawed and + murdered—free presses cast into the streets and their fragments strewed + with shoutings, or flourished in triumph before the gaze of approving crowds + as proud members of prostrate law! + + </p> + <p> + The spirit and power of our fathers, where are they? Their deep + homage always and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with its + <em>inseparable signs—free speech and a free press</em>—their + reverence for justice, liberty, <em>rights</em> and all-pervading law, + where are they? + + </p> + <p> + But we turn from these considerations—though the times on which + we have fallen, and those towards which we are borne with headlong + haste, call for their discussion as with the voices of departing + life—and proceed to topics relevant to the argument before us. + + </p> + <p> + The seventh article of the amendments to the constitution is + alleged to withhold from Congress the power to abolish slavery in the + District. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, + without due process of law." All the slaves in the District have been + "deprived of liberty" by legislative acts. Now, these legislative acts + "depriving" them "of liberty," were either "due process of law," + or they were <em>not</em>. If they <em>were</em>, then a legislative + act, taking from the master that "property" which is the identical "liberty" + previously taken from the slave, would be "due process of law" + <em>also</em>, and of course a <em>constitutional</em> act; but if the + legislative acts "depriving" them of "liberty" were <em>not</em> "due + process of law," then the slaves were deprived of liberty + <em>unconstitutionally</em>, and these acts are <em>void</em>. + In that case the <em>constitution emancipates them</em>. + + </p> + <p> + If the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase "due process of + law," is <em>judicial</em> process solely, it is granted, and + that fact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District <em>has</em> been + deprived of his liberty by "a judicial process," or, in other words, by + "due process of law;" consequently, upon the objector's own admission, + every slave in the District has been deprived of liberty + <em>unconstitutionally</em>, and is therefore <em>free by the + constitution</em>. This is asserted only of the slaves under the "exclusive + legislation" of Congress. + + </p> + <p> + The last clause of the article under consideration is quoted for the + same purpose: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use + without just compensation." Each of the state constitutions has a + clause of similar purport. The abolition of slavery in the District by + Congress, would not, as we shall presently show, violate this clause + either directly or by implication. Granting for argument's sake, that + slaves are "private property," and that to emancipate them, would + be to "take private property" for "public use," the objector admits + the power of Congress to do <em>this</em>, provided it will do something + <em>else</em>, that is, <em>pay</em> for them. Thus, instead of + denying <em>the power</em>, the objector not only admits, but + <em>affirms</em> it, as the ground of the inference that + compensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence + of <em>one</em> power, the objector asserts the existence of + <em>two</em>—one, the power to take the slaves from their masters, + the other, the power to take the property of the United States to pay for + them. + + </p> + <p> + If Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private + property, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally, + <em>legalize</em> the perpetration of such acts, by <em>others</em>, + nor <em>protect</em> those who commit them. Does the power to rob a man + of his earnings, rob the + + earner of his <em>right</em> to them? Who has a better right to the + <em>product</em> than the producer?—to the <em>interest</em>, + than the owner of the <em>principal</em>?—to the hands and arms, + than he from whose shoulders they swing?—to the body and soul, than he + whose they <em>are</em>? Congress not only impairs but annihilates the + right of private property, while it withholds from the slaves of the District + their title to <em>themselves</em>. What! Congress powerless to protect a + man's right to <em>himself</em>, when it can make inviolable the right to + a <em>dog</em>? But, waving this, I deny that the abolition of slavery in + the District would violate this clause. What does the clause prohibit? The + "taking" of "private property" for "public use." Suppose Congress should + emancipate the slaves in the District, what would it "<em>take</em>?" + Nothing. What would it <em>hold</em>? Nothing. What would it put to + "public use?" Nothing. Instead of <em>taking</em> "private property," + Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say "private property shall not + <em>be</em> taken; and those who have been robbed of it already, shall be + kept out of it no longer; and since every man's right to his own body is + <em>paramount</em>, he shall be protected in it." True, Congress may not + arbitrarily take property, <em>as</em> property, from one man and give it + to another—and in the abolition of slavery no such thing is done. A + legislative act changes the <em>condition</em> of the slave—makes + him his own <em>proprietor</em> instead of the property of another. It + determines a question of <em>original right</em> between two classes of + persons—doing an act of justice to one, and restraining the other from + acts of injustice; or, in other words, preventing one from robbing the other, + by granting to the injured party the protection of just and equitable laws. + + </p> + <p> + Congress, by an act of abolition, would change the condition of + seven thousand "persons" in the District, but would "take" nothing. + To construe this provision so as to enable the citizens of the District + to hold as property, and in perpetuity, whatever they please, or to + hold it as property in all circumstances—all necessity, public welfare, + and the will and power of the government to the contrary + notwithstanding—is a total perversion of its whole <em>intent</em>. + The <em>design</em> of the provision, was to throw up a barrier against + Governmental aggrandizement. The right to "take property" for <em>State + uses</em> is one thing;—the right so to adjust the + <em>tenures</em> by which property is held, that <em>each may have his + own secured to him</em>, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of + legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the District, + it would be <em>adopting</em>, not abolishing slavery—becoming a + slaveholder itself, instead of requiring others to be such no longer. The + clause in question, prohibits the "taking" of individual property for public + uses, to be employed or disposed of <em>as</em> property for governmental + purposes. Congress, by abolishing slavery in the District, would do no such + thing. It would merely change the <em>condition</em> of that which has + been recognised as a qualified property by congressional acts, though + previously declared "persons" by the constitution. More than this is done + continually by Congress and every other Legislature. Property the most + absolute and unqualified, + + is annihilated by legislative acts. The embargo and + non-intercourse act, prostrated at a stroke, a forest of shipping, and sank + millions of capital. To say nothing of the power of Congress to take + hundreds of millions from the people by direct taxation, who doubts + its power to abolish at once the whole tariff system, change the seat + of Government, arrest the progress of national works, prohibit any + branch of commerce with the Indian tribes or with foreign nations, + change the locality of forts, arsenals, magazines, dock yards, &c., to + abolish the Post Office system, the privilege of patents and copyrights, + &c. By such acts Congress might, in the exercise of its acknowledged + powers, annihilate property to an incalculable amount, and + that without becoming liable to claims for compensation. + + </p> + <p> + Finally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of + "<em>property</em>." The constitution of the United States does not + recognise slaves as "PROPERTY" any where, and it does not recognise them in + <em>any sense</em> in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in + the constitution recognise them as "persons." Every reference to them + points <em>solely</em> to the element of <em>personality</em>; and + thus, by the strongest implication, declares that the constitution + <em>knows</em> them only as "persons," and <em>will</em> not recognise + them in any other light. If they escape into free States, the constitution + authorizes their being taken back. But how? Not as the property of an "owner," + but as "persons;" and the peculiarity of the expression is a marked + recognition of their <em>personality</em>—a refusal to recognise + them as chattels—"persons <em>held</em> to service." Are + <em>oxen "held</em> to service?" That can be affirmed only + of <em>persons</em>. Again, slaves give political power as "persons." The + constitution, in settling the principle of representation, requires their + enumeration in the census. How? As property? Then why not + include race horses and game cocks? Slaves, like other inhabitants, + are enumerated as "persons." So by the constitution, the government + was pledged to non-interference with "the migration or importation + of such <em>persons</em>" as the States might think proper to admit until + 1808, and authorized the laying of a tax on each "person" so admitted. + Further, slaves are recognized as "persons" by the exaction of their + <em>allegiance</em> to the government. For offences against the government + slaves are tried as <em>persons</em>; as persons they are entitled to + counsel for their defence, to the rules of evidence, and to "due process of + the law," and as <em>persons</em> they are punished. True, they are loaded + with cruel disabilities in courts of law, such as greatly obstruct and often + inevitably defeat the ends of justice, yet they are still recognised as + <em>persons</em>. Even in the legislation of Congress, and in the + diplomacy of the general government, notwithstanding the frequent and wide + departures from the integrity of the constitution on this subject, slaves are + not recognised as <em>property</em> without qualification. Congress has + always refused to grant compensation for slaves killed or taken by the + enemy, even when these slaves had been impressed into the United + States' service. In half a score of cases since the last war, Congress + has rejected such applications for compensation. Besides, both in + + Congressional acts, and in our national diplomacy, slaves and property + are not used as convertible terms. When mentioned in treaties and + state papers it is in such a way as to distinguish them from mere property, + and generally by a recognition of their <em>personality</em>. In the + invariable recognition of slaves as <em>persons</em>, the United States' + constitution caught the mantle of the glorious Declaration, and most worthily + wears it.—It recognizes all human beings as "men," "persons," and + thus as "equals." In the original draft of the Declaration, as it + came from the head of Jefferson, it is alleged that Great Britain had + "waged a cruel war against <em>human</em> nature itself, violating its + most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people, + carrying them into slavery, * * determined to keep up a market where + MEN should be bought and sold,"—thus disdaining to make the charter + of freedom a warrant for the arrest of <em>men</em>, that they might be + shorn both of liberty and humanity. + + </p> + <p> + The celebrated Roger Sherman, one of the committee of five appointed + to draft the Declaration of Independence, and also a member of the + Convention that formed the United States' Constitution, said, in the first + Congress after its adoption: "The constitution <em>does not consider these + persons</em>, (slaves,) <em>as a species of + property</em>."—[Lloyd's Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 313.] That the United + States' Constitution does not make slaves "property," is shown in the fact, + that no person, either as a citizen of the United States, or by having his + domicile within the United States' government, can hold slaves. He can hold + them only by deriving his power from <em>state</em> laws, or from the law + of Congress, if he hold slaves within the District. But no person resident + within the United States' jurisdiction, and <em>not</em> within the + District, nor within a state whose laws support slavery, nor "held to service" + under the laws of such state or district, having escaped therefrom, + <em>can be held as a slave</em>. + + </p> + <p> + Men can hold <i>property</i> under the United States' + government though residing beyond the bounds of any state, district, or + territory. An inhabitant of the Wisconsin Territory can hold property there + under the laws of the United States, but he cannot hold + <i>slaves</i> there under the United States' laws, nor by + virtue of the United States' Constitution, nor upon the ground of his United + States citizenship, nor by having his domicile within the United States + jurisdiction. The constitution no where recognizes the right to "slave + property," <em>but merely the fact that the states have jurisdiction each + in its own limits, and that there are certain "persons" within their + jurisdictions "held to service" by their own laws</em>. + + </p> + <p> + Finally, in the clause under consideration, "private property" + is not to be taken "without <em>just</em> compensation." "JUST!" If + justice is to be appealed to in determining the amount of compensation, + let her determine the <em>grounds</em> also. If it be her province to say + <em>how much</em> compensation is "just," it is hers to say whether + <em>any</em> is "just,"—whether the slave is "just" property + <em>at all</em>, rather than a "<em>person</em>." Then, if justice + adjudges the slave to be "private property," + + it adjudges him to be <em>his own</em> property, since the right to + one's <em>self</em> is the first right—the source of all + others—the original stock by which they are accumulated—the + principal, of which they are the interest. And since the slave's "private + property" has been "taken," and since "compensation" is impossible—there + being no <em>equivalent</em> for one's self—the least that can be + done is to restore to him his original private property. + + </p> + <p> + Having shown that in abolishing slavery, "property" would not + be "taken for public use," it may be added that, in those states where + slavery has been abolished by law, no claim for compensation has + been allowed. Indeed the manifest absurdity of demanding it, seems + to have quite forestalled the <em>setting up</em> of such a claim. + + </p> + <p> + The abolition of slavery in the District, instead of being a legislative + anomaly, would proceed upon the principles of every day legislation. + It has been shown already, that the United States' Constitution + does not recognize slaves as "property." Yet ordinary legislation is + full of precedents, showing that even <em>absolute</em> property is in + many respects wholly subject to legislation. The repeal of the law of + entailments—all those acts that control the alienation of property, its + disposal by will, its passing to heirs by descent, with the question, who + shall be heirs, and what shall be the rule of distribution among them, or + whether property shall be transmitted at all by descent, rather than + escheat to the state—these, with statutes of limitation, and various + other classes of legislative acts, serve to illustrate the acknowledged + scope of the law-making power, even where property <em>is in every sense + absolute</em>. Persons whose property is thus affected by public laws, + receive from the government no compensation for their losses, unless + the state has been put into possession of the property taken from + them. + + </p> + <p> + The preamble of the United States' Constitution declares it to be + a fundamental object of the organization of the government "to ESTABLISH + JUSTICE." Has Congress <em>no power</em> to do that for which + it was made the <em>depository of power</em>? CANNOT the United States + Government fulfil the purpose <em>for which it was brought into + being</em>? + + </p> + <p> + To abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; + but to "<em>establish justice</em>" between two parties. To emancipate + the slave, is to "<em>establish justice</em>" between him and his + master—to throw around the person, character, conscience, liberty, and + domestic relations of the one, <em>the same law</em> that secures and + blesses the other. In other words, to prevent by <em>legal restraints</em> + one class of men from seizing upon another class, and robbing them at pleasure + of their earnings, their time, their liberty, their kindred, and the very use + and ownership of their own persons. Finally, to abolish slavery is to proclaim + and <em>enact</em> that innocence and helplessness—now + <em>free plunder</em>—are entitled to <em>legal protection</em>; + and that power, avarice, and lust, shall no longer gorge upon their spoils + under the license, and by the ministrations of <em>law</em>! Congress, by + possessing "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," has a + <em>general protective power</em> for ALL the inhabitants + + of the District. If it has no power to protect <em>one</em> man, it has + none to protect another—none to protect <em>any</em>—and if it + <em>can</em> protect <em>one</em> man and is <em>bound</em> to + protect him, it <em>can</em> protect <em>every</em> man—all + men—and is <em>bound</em> to do it. All admit the power of Congress + to protect the masters in the District against their slaves. What part of the + constitution gives the power? The clause so often quoted,—"power of + legislation in all cases whatsoever," equally in the "<em>case</em>" of + defending the blacks against the whites, as in that of defending the whites + against the blacks. The power is given also by Art. 1, Sec. 8, + clause 15—"Congress shall have power to suppress + insurrections"—a power to protect, as well blacks against whites, as + whites against blacks. If the constitution gives power to protect + <em>one</em> class against the other, it gives power to protect + <em>either</em> against the other. Suppose the blacks + in the District should seize the whites, drive them into the fields and + kitchens, force them to work without pay, flog them, imprison them, + and sell them at their pleasure, where would Congress find power to + restrain such acts? Answer; a <em>general</em> power in the clause so + often cited, and an <em>express</em> one in that cited + above—"Congress shall have power, to suppress insurrections." So much + for a <em>supposed</em> case. Here follows a <em>real</em> one. The + whites in the District are <em>perpetrating these identical acts</em> + upon seven thousand blacks daily. That Congress has power to restrain these + acts in one case, all assert, and in so doing they assert the power "in + <em>all</em> cases whatsoever." For the grant of power to suppress + insurrections, is an <em>unconditional</em> grant, not hampered by + provisos as to the color, shape, size, sex, language, creed, or condition of + the insurgents. Congress derives its power to suppress this + <em>actual</em> insurrection, from the same source whence it derived its + power to suppress the <em>same</em> acts in the case + <em>supposed</em>. If one case is an insurrection, the other is. The + <em>acts</em> in both are the same; the <em>actors</em> only are + different. In the one case, ignorant and degraded—goaded by the memory + of the past, stung by the present, and driven to desperation by the fearful + looking for of wrongs for ever to come. In the other, enlightened into the + nature of <em>rights</em>, the principles of justice, and the dictates of + the law of love, unprovoked by wrongs, with cool deliberation, and by system, + they perpetrate these acts upon those to whom they owe unnumbered obligations + for <em>whole lives</em> of unrequited service. On which side may + palliation be pleaded, and which party may most reasonably claim an abatement + of the rigors of law? If Congress has power to suppress such acts + <em>at all</em>, it has power to suppress them <em>in</em> all. + + </p> + <p> + It has been shown already that <em>allegiance</em> is exacted of the + slave. Is the government of the United States unable to grant + <em>protection</em> where it exacts <em>allegiance</em>? It is an + axiom of the civilized world, and a maxim even with savages, that allegiance + and protection are reciprocal and correlative. Are principles powerless with + us which exact homage of barbarians? <em>Protection is the</em> + CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT <em>of every human being under the exclusive + legislation of Congress who has not forfeited it by crime</em>. + + </p> + <p> + In conclusion, I argue the power of Congress to abolish slavery + in the District, froth Art. 1, sec. 8, clause 1, of the constitution: + "Congress shall have power to provide for the common defence and + the general welfare of the United States." Has the government of + the United States no power under this grant, to legislate within its + own exclusive jurisdiction on subjects that vitally affect its interests? + Suppose the slaves in the District should rise upon their masters, and the + United States' government, in quelling the insurrection, should kill any + number of them. Could their masters claim compensation of the government? + Manifestly not; even though no proof existed that the particular slaves killed + were insurgents. This was precisely the point at issue between those masters, + whose slaves were killed by the State troops at the time of the Southampton + insurrection, and the Virginia Legislature; no evidence was brought to show + that the slaves killed by the troops were insurgents; yet the Virginia + Legislature decided that their masters were <em>not entitled + to compensation</em>. They proceeded on the sound principle, that a + government may in self protection destroy the claim of its subjects even to + that which has been recognised as property by its own acts. If in providing + for the common defence the United States government, in the case supposed, + would have power to destroy slaves both as <em>property and persons</em>, + it surely might stop half-way, destroy them as <em>property</em> while it + legalized their existence as <em>persons</em>, and thus provided for the + common defence by giving them a personal and powerful interest in the + government, and securing their strength for its defence. + + </p> + <p> + Like other Legislatures, Congress has power to abate nuisances—to + remove or tear down unsafe buildings—to destroy infected + cargoes—to lay injunctions upon manufactories injurious to the public + health—and thus to "provide for the common defence and general welfare" + by destroying individual property, when it puts in jeopardy the public weal. + + </p> + <p> + Granting, for argument's sake, that slaves are "property" in the + District of Columbia—if Congress has a right to annihilate property + in the District when the public safety requires it, it may surely annihilate + its existence <em>as</em> property when public safety requires it, + especially if it transform into a <em>protection</em> and + <em>defence</em> that which as <em>property</em> periled the public + interests. In the District of Columbia there are, + besides the United States' Capitol, the President's house, the national + offices, &c. of the Departments of State, Treasury, War, and Navy, + the General Post-office, and Patent Office. It is also the residence of + the President, all the highest officers of the government, both houses of + Congress, and all the foreign ambassadors. In this same District there + are also <em>seven thousand slaves</em>. Jefferson, in + his Notes on Va. p. 241, says of slavery, that "the State permitting + one half of its citizens to trample on the rights of the other, + <em>transforms them into enemies</em>;" and Richard + Henry Lee, in the Va. House of Burgesses in 1758, declared that to + those who held them, "<em>slaves must be natural + enemies.</em>" Is Congress so <em>impotent</em> that it + <em>cannot</em> + exercise that right pronounced both by municipal and national law, + the most sacred and universal—the right of self-preservation and + defence? Is it shut up to the <em>necessity</em> of keeping seven thousand + "enemies" in the heart of the nation's citadel? Does the iron fiat of + the constitution doom it to such imbecility that it <em>cannot</em> + arrest the process that <em>made</em> them "enemies," and still goads to + deadlier hate by fiery trials, and day by day adds others to their + number? Is <em>this</em> providing for the common defence and general + welfare? If to rob men of rights excites their hate, freely to restore them + and make amends, will win their love. + + </p> + <p> + By emancipating the slaves in the District, the government of the + United States would disband an army of "enemies," and enlist "for + the common defence and general welfare," a body guard of <em>friends</em> + seven thousand strong. In the last war, a handful of British soldiers + sacked Washington city, burned the capitol, the President's house, + and the national offices and archives; and no marvel, for thousands + of the inhabitants of the District had been "TRANSFORMED INTO ENEMIES." + Would <em>they</em> beat back invasion? If the national government + had exercised its constitutional "power to provide for the common + defence and to promote the general welfare," by turning those "enemies" + into friends, then, instead of a hostile ambush lurking in every + thicket inviting assault, and secret foes in every house paralyzing + defence, an army of allies would have rallied in the hour of her calamity, + and shouted defiance from their munitions of rocks; whilst the + banner of the republic, then trampled in dust, would have floated securely + over FREEMEN exulting amidst bulwarks of strength. + + </p> + <p> + To show that Congress can abolish slavery in the District, under + the grant of power "to provide for the common defence and to promote + the general welfare," I quote an extract from a speech of Mr. + Madison, of Va., in the first Congress under the constitution, May 13, + 1789. Speaking of the abolition of the slave trade, Mr. Madison + says: "I should venture to say it is as much for the interests of + Georgia and South Carolina, as of any state in the union. Every + addition they receive to their number of slaves tends to <em>weaken</em> + them, and renders them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities + with foreign nations, they will be the means of <em>inviting</em> + attack instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the general + government to protect every part of the empire against danger, as well + <em>internal</em> as external. <em>Every thing, therefore, which tends + to increase this danger, though it may be a local affair, yet if it involves + national expense or safety, it becomes of concern to every part of the union, + and is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged with + the general administration of the government.</em>" See Cong. Reg. vol. + 1, p. 310-11. + + </p> + <p> + WYTHE. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E5PS"></a> + POSTSCRIPT + + </h3> + <p> + My apology for adding a <i>postscript</i>, to a discussion + already perhaps too protracted, is the fact that the preceding sheets were in + the hands of the printer, and all but the concluding pages had gone through + the press, before the passage of Mr. Calhoun's late resolutions in the Senate + of the United States. A proceeding so extraordinary,—if indeed the time + has not passed when <em>any</em> acts of Congress in derogation of + freedom and in deference to slavery, can be deemed extraordinary,—should + not be suffered to pass in silence at such a crisis as the present; especially + as the passage of one of the resolutions by a vote of 36 to 8, exhibits a + shift of position on the part of the South, as sudden as it is unaccountable, + being nothing less than the surrender of a fortress which until then they had + defended with the pertinacity of a blind and almost infuriated fatuity. Upon + the discussions during the pendency of the resolutions, and upon the vote, by + which they were carried, I + make no comment, save only to record my exultation in the fact there + exhibited, that great emergencies are <em>true touchstones</em>, and that + henceforward, until this question is settled, whoever holds a seat in Congress + will find upon, and all around him, a pressure strong enough to TEST + him—a focal blaze that will find its way through the carefully adjusted + cloak of fair pretension, and the sevenfold brass of two-faced political + intrigue, and <em>no</em>-faced <em>non-committalism</em>, piercing + to the dividing asunder of joints and marrow. + Be it known to every northern man who aspires to a seat in Congress, + that hereafter it is the destiny of congressional action on this subject, + to be a + MIGHTY REVELATOR—making secret thoughts public property, and proclaiming + on the house-tops what is whispered in the ear—smiting off masks, + and bursting open sepulchres beautiful outwardly, and heaving up to the sun + their dead men's bones. To such we say,—<em>Remember the Missouri + Question, and the fate of those who then sold the North, and their own + birthright!</em></p> + <p> + Passing by the resolutions generally without remark—the attention + of the reader is specially solicited to Mr. Clay's substitute for Mr. + Calhoun's fifth resolution. + + </p> + <p> + "Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the states + of Virginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic slavery existed in + both of these states, including the ceded territory, and that, as it still + continues in both of them, it could not be abolished within the District + without a violation of that good faith, which was implied in the cession and + in the acceptance of the territory; nor, unless compensation were made to the + proprietors of slaves, without a manifest infringement of an amendment to the + constitution of the United States; nor without exciting a degree of just + alarm and apprehension in the states recognising slavery, far transcending + in mischievous tendency, any possible benefit which could be accomplished + by the abolition." + + </p> + <p> + By voting for this resolution, the south by a simultaneous movement, + shifted its mode of defence, not so much by taking a position entirely new, + as by attempting to refortify an old one—never much trusted in, and + abandoned mainly long ago, as being unable to hold out against assault however + + unskilfully directed. In the debate on this resolution, though the southern + members of Congress did not <em>professedly</em> retreat from the ground + hitherto maintained by them—that Congress has no power by the + constitution to abolish slavery in the District—yet in the main they + silently drew off from it. + + </p> + <p> + The passage of this resolution—with the vote of every southern senator, + forms a new era in the discussion of this question. + + </p> + <p> + We cannot join in the lamentations of those who bewail it. We hail it, + and rejoice in it. It was as we would have had it—offered by a southern + senator, advocated by southern senators, and on the ground that it "was no + compromise"—that it embodied the true southern principle—that + "this resolution stood on as high ground as Mr. Calhoun's."—(Mr. + Preston)—"that Mr. Clay's resolution was as strong as Mr. + Calhoun's"—(Mr. Rives)—that "the resolution he (Mr. Calhoun) now + refused to support, was as strong as his own, and that in supporting it, there + was no abandonment of principle by the south."—(Mr. Walker, of + Mi.)—further, that it was advocated by the southern senators generally + as an expression of their views, and as setting the question of slavery in the + District on its <em>true</em> ground—that + finally when the question was taken, every slaveholding senator, including + Mr. Calhoun himself, voted for the resolution. + + </p> + <p> + By passing this resolution, and with such avowals, the south has surrendered + irrevocably the whole question at issue between them and the + petitioners for abolition in the District. It has, unwittingly but explicitly, + conceded the main question argued in the preceding pages. + + </p> + <p> + The <em>only</em> ground taken against the right of Congress to abolish + slavery in the District is, that slavery existed in Maryland and Virginia when + the cession was made, and "<em>as it still continues in both of them</em>, + it could not be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was + implied in the cession," &c. The <em>sole argument</em> is + <em>not</em> that exclusive <i>sovereignty</i> has no + power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction, <em>nor</em> that the + powers of even <em>ordinary legislation</em> cannot do it,—nor that + the clause granting Congress "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever + over such District," gives no power to do it; but that the <em>unexpressed + expectation</em> of one of the parties that the other would not "in + <em>all</em> cases" use the power which said party had + consented <em>might be used "in all cases," prohibits</em> the use of it. + The only cardinal point in the discussion, is here not only + <em>yielded</em>, but formally laid + down by the South as the leading article in their creed on the question of + Congressional jurisdiction over slavery in the District. The + <em>sole reason</em> given why Congress should not abolish, and the sole + evidence that if it did, such abolition would be a violation of "good faith," + is that "<em>slavery still continues in those states</em>,"—thus + explicitly admitting, that if slavery did <em>not</em> + "still continue" in those States, Congress <em>could</em> abolish it in + the District. The same admission is made also in the <em>premises</em>, + which state that slavery existed in those states <em>at the time of the + cession</em>, &c. Admitting that if it had <em>not</em> existed + there then, but had grown up in the District under <em>United States' + laws</em>, Congress might constitutionally abolish it. Or that if the ceded + parts of those states had been the <em>only</em> parts in which slaves + were held under their laws, Congress might have abolished in such a + contingency also. The cession in that case leaving no slaves in those + states,—no "good faith," would be "implied" in it, nor any "violated," + by an act of abolition. The principle of the resolution makes this further + admission, that if Maryland and Virginia should at once abolish their slavery, + Congress might at once abolish it in the District. The principle goes even + further than this, and <em>requires</em> Congress in such case to abolish + slavery in the District "by the <em>good faith implied</em> in the cession + and acceptance of the territory." Since + + according to the spirit and scope of the resolution, this "implied good faith" + of Maryland and Virginia in making the cession, was that Congress would + do nothing within the District which should go to counteract the policy, or + bring into disrepute the "institutions," or call in question the usages, or + even in any way ruffle the prejudices of those states, or do what + <em>they</em> might think would unfavorably bear upon their interests; + <em>themselves</em> of course being the judges. + + </p> + <p> + But let us dissect another limb of the resolution. What is to be understood + by "that good faith which was IMPLIED?" It is of course an admission that + such a condition was not <em>expressed</em> in the acts of + cession—that in their <em>terms</em> there is nothing restricting + the power of Congress on the subject of slavery in the District—not + a <em>word</em> alluding to it, nor one inserted with such an + <em>intent</em>. This "implied faith," then, rests on no clause or word + in the United States' Constitution, or in the acts of cession, or in the acts + of Congress accepting the cession, nor does it rest on any declarations of the + legislatures of Maryland and Virginia made at the time, or in that generation, + nor on any <em>act</em> of theirs, nor on any declaration of the + <em>people</em> of those states, nor on the testimony of + the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Madisons, Chaces, Martins, and Jennifers, of + those states and times. The assertion rests <em>on itself alone!</em> + Mr. Clay and the other senators who voted for the resolution, + <em>guess</em> that Maryland and Virginia <em>supposed</em> that + Congress would by no means <em>use</em> the power given + them by the constitution, except in such ways as would be well pleasing in + the eyes of those states; especially as one of them was the "Ancient + Dominion!" And now after the lapse of half a century, this + <em>assumed expectation</em> of Maryland and Virginia, the existence of + which is mere matter of conjecture with the 36 senators, is conjured up and + duly installed upon the judgment-seat of final appeal, before whose nod + constitutions are to flee away, and with whom, solemn grants of power and + explicit guaranties are when weighed in the balance, altogether lighter than + vanity! + + </p> + <p> + But let us survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia + leave so much to be "<em>implied</em>?" Why did they not in some way + <em>express</em> what lay so near their hearts? Had their vocabulary run + so low that a single word could not be eked out for the occasion? Or were + those states so bashful of a sudden that they dare not speak out and + tell what they wanted? Or did they take it for granted that Congress + would always act in the premises according to their wishes, and that too, + without their <em>making known</em> their wishes? If, as honorable + senators tell us, Maryland and Virginia did verily travail with such + abounding <em>faith</em>, why brought they forth no <em>works</em>? + + </p> + <p> + It is as true in <em>legislation</em> as in religion, that the only + <em>evidence</em> of "faith" is <em>works</em>, and that "faith" + <em>without</em> works is <em>dead</em>, i.e. has no + power. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing + <em>expressed</em>, an "implied" <em>faith</em> without works, is + <em>omnipotent</em>. Mr. Clay is lawyer enough to + know that even a <em>senatorial hypothesis</em> as to <em>what must + have been the understanding</em> + of Maryland and Virginia about congressional exercise of constitutional + power, <em>abrogates no grant</em>, and that to plead it in a court of + law, would be of small service except to jostle "their honors'" gravity! He + need not be told that the constitution gives Congress "power to exercise + exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District." Nor that + the legislatures of Maryland and Virginia constructed their acts of cession + with this clause <em>before their eyes</em>, and that both of them + declared those acts made "in <em>pursuance</em>" of said clause. Those + states were aware that the United States in their constitution had left + nothing to be "<em>implied</em>" as to the power of Congress over the + District;—an admonition quite sufficient one would + + think to put them on their guard, and induce them to eschew vague implications + and resort to <em>stipulations</em>. Full well did they know also that + these were times when, in matters of high import, <em>nothing</em> was + left to be "implied." + The colonies were then panting from a twenty years' conflict with + the mother country, about bills of rights, charters, treaties, constitutions, + grants, limitations, and <em>acts of cession</em>. The severities of a + long and terrible discipline had taught them to guard at all points + <em>legislative grants</em>, that their + exact import and limit might be self-evident—leaving no scope for a + blind "faith," that <em>somehow</em> in the lottery of chances there would + be no blanks, but making all sure by the use of explicit terms, and wisely + chosen words, and <em>just enough</em> of them. The Constitution of the + United States with its amendments, those of the individual states, the + national treaties, the public documents of the general and state governments + at that period, show the universal conviction of legislative bodies, that when + great public interests were at stake, nothing should be left to be "implied." + + </p> + <p> + Further: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their "implied + faith" in <em>words</em>, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a + proviso, declaring that Congress should not "exercise exclusive legislation + in <em>all</em> cases whatsoever over the District," but that the "case" + of <em>slavery</em> should be an exception: + who does not know that Congress, if it had accepted the cession on those + terms, would have violated the Constitution; and who that has ever studied + the free mood of those times in its bearings on slavery—proofs of which + are given in scores on the preceding pages—can for an instant believe + that the people of the United States would have altered their Constitution for + the purpose of providing for slavery an inviolable sanctuary; that when driven + in from its outposts, and everywhere retreating discomfited before the + march of freedom, it might be received into everlasting habitations on the + common homestead and hearth-stone of this free republic? Besides, who can + believe that Virginia made such a condition, or cherished such a purpose, + when at that very moment, Washington, Jefferson, Wythe, Patrick Henry + St. George Tucker, and almost all her illustrious men, were advocating the + abolition of slavery by law. When Washington had said, two years before, + Maryland and Virginia "must have laws for the gradual abolition of slavery + and at a period <em>not remote</em>;" and when Jefferson in his letter to + Price, three years before the cession, had said, speaking of Virginia, "This + is the next state to which we may turn our eyes for the interesting spectacle + of justice in conflict with avarice and oppression—a conflict in which + THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING DAILY RECRUITS;" when voluntary emancipations + on the soil were then progressing at the rate of between one and two thousand + annually, (See Judge Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery," p. 73;) + when the public sentiment of Virginia had undergone, and was undergoing so + mighty a revolution that the idea of the continuance of slavery as a permanent + system could not be <em>tolerated</em>, though she then contained about + half the slaves in the Union. Was this the time to stipulate for the + <em>perpetuity</em> of slavery under the exclusive legislation of + Congress? and that too at the <em>same</em> session of Congress + when <em>every one</em> of her delegation voted for the abolition of + slavery in the North West Territory; a territory which she had herself ceded + to Congress, and along with it had surrendered her jurisdiction over many of + her citizens, inhabitants of that territory, who held slaves there—and + whose slaves were emancipated by that act of Congress, in which all her + delegation with one accord participated? + + </p> + <p> + Now in view of the universal belief then prevalent, that slavery in this + country was doomed to short life, and especially that in Maryland and Virginia + it would be <em>speedily</em> abolished—are we to be told that these + states <em>designed</em> + to bind Congress <em>never</em> to terminate it? Are we to adopt the + monstrous conclusion that this was the <em>intent</em> of the Ancient + Dominion—thus to <em>bind</em> the United States by an "implied + faith," and that when the United States <em>accepted</em> the cession, + she did solemnly thus plight her troth, and that Virginia did then so + <em>understand</em> it? Verily one would think that honorable + senators supposed themselves deputed to do our <em>thinking</em> as well + as our legislation, or rather, that they themselves were absolved from such + drudgery by virtue of their office! + + </p> + <p> + Another absurdity of this dogma about "implied faith" is, that where + there was no power to exact an <em>express</em> pledge, there was none to + demand an <em>implied</em> one, and where there was no power to + <em>give</em> the one, there was none to give the <em>other</em>. We + have shown already that Congress could not have accepted the cession with + such a condition. To have signed away a part of its constitutional grant of + power would have been a <em>breach</em> of the + Constitution. Further, the Congress which accepted the cession was competent + to pass a resolution pledging itself not to <em>use all</em> the power + over the District committed to it by the Constitution. But here its power + ended. Its resolution would only bind <em>itself</em>. Could it bind the + <em>next</em> Congress by its authority? Could the members of one Congress + say to the members of another, because we do not choose to exercise all the + authority vested in us by the Constitution, therefore you <em>shall</em> + not? This would have been a prohibition + to do what the Constitution gives power to do. Each successive Congress + would still have gone to the Constitution for its power, brushing away in its + course the cobwebs stretched across its path by the officiousness of an + impertinent predecessor. Again, the legislatures of Virginia and Maryland, + had no power to bind Congress, either by an express or an implied pledge, + never to abolish slavery in the District. Those legislatures had no power + to bind <em>themselves</em> never to abolish slavery within their own + territories—the ceded parts included. Where then would they get power + to bind <em>another</em> not to do what they had no power to bind + themselves not to do? If a legislature could not in this respect control the + successive legislatures of its own State, could it control the successive + Congresses of the United States? + + </p> + <p> + But perhaps we shall be told, that the "implied faith" in the acts of cession + of Maryland and Virginia was <em>not</em> that Congress should + <em>never</em> abolish slavery in the District, but that it should not do + it until <em>they</em> had done it within their bounds! Verily this + "faith" comes little short of the faith of miracles! "A good rule that works + both ways." First, Maryland and Virginia have "good faith" that Congress will + <em>not</em> abolish until <em>they</em> do; and then just as "good + faith" that Congress <em>will</em> abolish <em>when</em> they do! + Excellently accommodated! Did those States suppose that Congress would + legislate over the national domain, the common jurisdiction of + <em>all</em>, for Maryland and Virginia alone? And who, did they suppose, + would be judges in the matter?—themselves merely? or the whole Union? + + </p> + <p> + This "good faith implied in the cession" is no longer of doubtful + interpretation. The principle at the bottom of it, when fairly stated, is + this:—That the Government of the United States are bound in "good faith" + to do in the District of Columbia, without demurring, just what and when, + Maryland and Virginia do in their own States. In short, that the general + government is eased of all the burdens of legislation within its exclusive + jurisdiction, save that of hiring a scrivener to copy off the acts of the + Maryland and Virginia legislatures as fast as they are passed, and engross + them, under the title of "Laws of the United States, for the District of + Columbia!" A slight additional expense would also be incurred in keeping up + an express between the capitols + + of those States and Washington city, bringing Congress from time to time + its "<em>instructions</em>" from head quarters—instructions not to + be disregarded without a violation of that, "good faith implied in the + cession," &c. + + </p> + <p> + This sets in strong light the advantages of "our glorious Union," if the + doctrine of Mr. Clay and the thirty-six Senators be orthodox. The people + of the United States have been permitted to set up at their own expense, + and on their own territory, two great <em>sounding boards</em> called + "Senate Chamber" and "Representatives' Hall," for the purpose of sending + abroad "by authority" <em>national echoes</em> of <em>state</em> + legislation!—permitted also to keep in + their pay a corps of pliant <em>national</em> musicians, with peremptory + instructions to + sound on any line of the staff according as Virginia and Maryland may give + the <em>sovereign</em> key note! + + </p> + <p> + Though this may have the seeming of mere raillery, yet an analysis of + the resolution and of the discussions upon it, will convince every fair mind + that it is but the legitimate carrying out of the <em>principle</em> + pervading both. They proceed virtually upon the hypothesis that the will and + pleasure of Virginia and Maryland are <em>paramount</em> to those of the + <em>Union</em>. If the main design of setting apart a federal district had + been originally the accommodation of Maryland, Virginia, and the south, with + the United States as an <em>agent</em> to consummate the object, there + could hardly have been higher assumption or louder vaunting. The sole object + of <em>having</em> such a District was in effect totally perverted in the + resolution of Mr. Clay, and in the discussions of the entire southern + delegation, upon its passage. Instead of taking the + ground, that the benefit of the whole Union was the sole <em>object</em> + of a federal district, that it was designed to guard and promote the interests + of <em>all</em> the states, and that it was to be legislated over + <em>for this end</em>—the resolution + proceeds upon an hypothesis <em>totally the reverse</em>. It takes a + single point of <em>state</em> policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL + interests, utterly overshadowing + them; abrogating national <em>rights</em>; making void a clause of the + Constitution; humbling the general government into a subject—crouching + for favors to a superior, and that too <em>on its own exclusive + jurisdiction</em>. All the attributes of sovereignty vested in Congress + by the Constitution it impales upon the point of an alleged + <em>implication</em>. And this is Mr. Clay's peace-offering, to + appease the lust of power and the ravenings of state encroachment! A + "<em>compromise</em>," forsooth! that sinks the general government on + <em>its own territory</em> into a mere colony, with Virginia and Maryland + for its "mother country!" It is refreshing to turn from these shallow, + distorted constructions and servile cringings, to the high bearing of other + southern men in other times; men, who in their character of legislators and + lawyers, disdained to accommodate their interpretations of constitutions and + charters to geographical lines, or to bend them to the purposes of a political + canvass. In the celebrated case of Cohens vs. the State of Virginia, Hon. + William Pinkney, late of Baltimore, and Hon. Walter Jones, of Washington city, + with other eminent constitutional lawyers, prepared an elaborate written + opinion, from which the following is an extract: "Nor is there any danger + to be apprehended from allowing to Congressional legislation with regard to + the District of Columbia, its FULLEST EFFECT. Congress is responsible to + the States, and to the people for that legislation. It is in truth the + legislation of the states over a district placed under their control for + <em>their own benefit</em>, not for that of the District, except as the + prosperity of the District is involved, and necessary to the + <em>general advantage</em>."—[Life of Pinkney, p. 612.] + + </p> + <p> + The profound legal opinion, from which this is an extract, was elaborated + at great length many years since, by a number of the most distinguished + + lawyers in the United States, whose signatures are appended to it. + It is specific and to the point. It asserts, 1st, that Congressional + legislation over the District, is "the legislation of the <em>States</em> + and the <em>people</em>," (not of <em>two</em> states, and a mere + <em>fraction</em> of the people.) 2d, "Over a District + placed under <em>their</em> control," i.e. under the control of the + <em>whole</em> of the States, not under the control of <em>two + twenty-sixths</em> of them. 3d, That it was thus + put under their control "<em>for</em> THEIR OWN <em>benefit</em>," the + benefit of <em>all</em> the States <em>equally</em>; not to secure + special benefits to Maryland and Virginia, (or what it might be + <em>conjectured</em> they would regard as benefits.) 4th, It concludes by + asserting that the design of this exclusive control of Congress over the + District was "not for the benefit of the <em>District</em>," except as + that is <em>connected</em> with, and <em>a means of promoting</em> the + <em>general</em> advantage. If this is the case with the + <em>District</em>, which is <em>directly</em> concerned, it is + pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia, who are but + <em>indirectly</em> interested, and would be but remotely affected by it. + The argument of Mr. Madison in the Congress of '89, an extract from which has + been given on a preceding page, lays down the same principle; that though any + matter "<em>may be a local affair, yet if it involves national</em> + EXPENSE OR SAFETY, <em>it becomes of concern to every part of the union, + and is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged + with the general administration of the government</em>." Cong. Reg. vol. 1. + p. 310, 11. + + </p> + <p> + But these are only the initiatory absurdities of this "good faith + <em>implied</em>." The thirty-six senators aptly illustrate the principle, + that error not only conflicts with truth, but is generally at issue with + itself. For if it would be a violation of "good faith" to Maryland and + Virginia, for Congress to abolish slavery in the District, it would be + <em>equally</em> a violation for Congress to + do it <em>with the consent</em>, or even at the earnest and unanimous + petition of the people of the District: yet for years it has been the southern + doctrine, that if the people of the District demand of Congress relief in this + respect, it has power, as their local legislature, to grant it, and by + abolishing slavery there, carry out the will of the citizens. But now new + light has broken in! The optics of the thirty-six have pierced the millstone + with a deeper insight, and discoveries thicken faster than they can be + telegraphed! Congress has no power, O no, not a modicum, to help the + slaveholders of the District, however loudly they may clamor for it. The + southern doctrine, that Congress is to the District a mere local Legislature + to do its pleasure, is tumbled from the genitive into the vocative! Hard + fate—and that too at the hands of those who begat it! The reasonings + of Messrs. Pinckney, Wise, and Leigh, are now found to be wholly at fault, + and the chanticleer rhetoric of Messrs. Glascock and Garland stalks + featherless and crest-fallen. For, Mr. Clay's resolution sweeps by the board + all those stereotyped common-places, as "Congress a local Legislature," + "consent of the District," "bound to consult the wishes of the District," + &c. &c., which for the last two sessions of Congress have served to + eke out scanty supplies. It declares, that <em>as slavery existed in + Maryland and Virginia at the time of the cession, and as it still continues + in both those states, it could not be abolished in the District without a + violation of 'that good faith'</em>, &c. + + </p> + <p> + But let us see where this principle of the <em>thirty-six</em> will lead + us. If "implied faith" to Maryland and Virginia <em>restrains</em> + Congress from the abolition of slavery in the District, it + <em>requires</em> Congress to do in the District what those states have + done within their bounds, i.e., restrain <em>others</em> from abolishing + it. Upon the same principle Congress is <em>bound</em>, by the doctrine of + Mr. Clay's resolution, to <em>prohibit emancipation</em> within the + District. There is no <em>stopping place</em> for this plighted "faith." + Congress must + + not only refrain from laying violent hands on slavery, <em>itself</em>, + and see to it that the slaveholders themselves do not, but it is bound to keep + the system up to the Maryland and Virginia standard of vigor! + + </p> + <p> + Again, if the good faith of Congress to Virginia and Maryland requires + that slavery should exist in the District, while it exists in those states, it + requires that it should exist there <em>as</em> it exists in those states. + If to abolish <em>every</em> form of slavery in the District would violate + good faith, to abolish <em>the</em> form existing in those states, and to + substitute a totally different one, would also violate it. The Congressional + "good faith" is to be kept not only with <em>slavery</em>, but with the + <em>Maryland and Virginia systems</em> of slavery. The faith of those + states not being in the preservation of <em>a</em> system, but of + <em>their</em> system; otherwise Congress, instead of + <em>sustaining</em>, would counteract their policy—principles + would be brought into action there conflicting with their system, + and thus the true spirit of the "implied" pledge would be violated. On + this principle, so long as slaves are "chattels personal" in Virginia and + Maryland, Congress could not make them <em>real estate</em>, inseparable + from the soil, as in Louisiana; nor could it permit slaves to read, nor to + worship God according to conscience; nor could it grant them trial by jury, + nor legalize marriage; nor require the master to give sufficient food and + clothing; nor prohibit the violent sundering of families—because such + provisions would conflict with the existing slave laws of Virginia and + Maryland, and thus violate the "good faith implied," &c. So the principle + of the resolution binds Congress in all these particulars: 1st. Not to + abolish slavery in the District <em>until</em> Virginia and Maryland + abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any <em>part</em> of it that exists in those + states. 3d. Not to abolish any <em>form</em> or <em>appendage</em> + of it still existing in those states. 4th. <em>To abolish</em> when they + do. 5th. To increase or abate its rigor <em>when, how</em>, and + <em>as</em> the same are modified by those states. In a word, + Congressional action in the District is to float passively in the wake of + legislative action on the subject in those states. + + </p> + <p> + But here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states + should steer different courses—then there would be <em>two</em> + wakes! Can Congress float in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! + Its obsequiousness equals its "power of legislation in <em>all</em> cases + whatsoever." It can float <em>up</em> on the Virginia tide, and ebb down + on the Maryland at the same time. What Maryland does, Congress will do in the + Maryland part. What Virginia does, Congress will do in the Virginia part. + Though Congress might not always be able to run at the bidding of both + <em>at once</em>, especially in different directions, yet if it obeyed + orders cheerfully, and "kept in its place," according to its "good faith + implied," impossibilities might not be rigidly exacted. True, we have the + highest sanction for the maxim that no <em>man</em> can serve two + masters—but if "corporations have <em>no</em> souls," analogy would + absolve Congress on that score, or at most give it only <em>a very small + soul</em>—not large enough to be at all in the way, as an + <em>exception</em> to the universal rule laid down to the maxim! + + </p> + <p> + In following out the absurdities of this "<em>implied</em> good faith," it + will be seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to + <em>all the subjects</em> of <em>legislation</em> existing in Maryland + and Virginia, which exist also within the District. Every system, + "institution," law, and established usage there, is placed beyond + Congressional control equally with slavery, and by the same "implied faith." + The abolition of the lottery system in the District as an + <em>immorality</em>, was a flagrant breach of this "good faith" to + Maryland and Virginia, as the system "still continued in those states." So + to abolish imprisonment for debt, and capital punishment, to remodel + the bank system, the power of corporations, the militia law, laws of + + limitation, &c., in the District, <em>unless Virginia and Maryland took + the lead</em>, would violate the "good faith implied in the cession," + &c. + + </p> + <p> + That in the acts of cession no such "good faith" was "implied by Virginia + and Maryland" as is claimed in the Resolution, we argue from the + fact, that in 1781 Virginia ceded to the United States all her northwest + territory, with the special proviso that her citizens inhabiting that + territory should "have their <em>possessions</em> and <em>titles</em> + confirmed to them, and be <em>protected</em> in the enjoyment of their + <em>rights</em> and liberties." (See Journals of Congress + vol. 9, p. 63.) The cession was made in the form of a deed, and signed by + Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe. Many + of these inhabitants <em>held slaves</em>. Three years after the cession, + the Virginia delegation in Congress <em>proposed</em> the passage of an + ordinance which should abolish slavery, in that territory, and declare that it + should never thereafter exist there. All the members of Congress from Virginia + and Maryland voted for this ordinance. Suppose some member of Congress + had during the passage of the ordinance introduced the following + resolution: "Resolved, That when the northwest territory was ceded + by Virginia to the United States, domestic slavery existed in that State, + including the ceded territory, and as it still continues in that State, + it could not be abolished within the territory without a violation of that + good faith, which was implied in the cession and in the acceptance of the + territory." What would have been the indignant response of Grayson, Griffin, + Madison, and the Lees, in the Congress of '87, to such a resolution, and of + Carrington, Chairman of the Committee, who reported the ratification of the + ordinance in the Congress of '89, and of Page and Parker, who with every + other member of the Virginia delegation supported it? + + </p> + <p> + But to enumerate all the absurdities into which the thirty-six Senators + have plunged themselves, would be to make a quarto inventory. We decline + the task; and in conclusion, merely add that Mr. Clay in presenting + this resolution, and each of the thirty-six Senators who voted for it, entered + on the records of the Senate, and proclaimed to the world, a most unworthy + accusation against the MILLIONS of American citizens who have during nearly + half a century petitioned the national legislature to abolish slavery in the + District of Colombia,—charging them either with the ignorance or the + impiety of praying the nation to violate its "PLIGHTED FAITH." The resolution + virtually indicts at the bar of public opinion, and brands with odium, all the + Manumission Societies, the <em>first</em> petitioners for the abolition of + slavery in the District, and for a long time the only ones, petitioning from + year to year through evil report and good report, still petitioning, by + individual societies and in their national conventions. + + </p> + <p> + But as if it were not enough to table the charge against such men as Benjamin + Rush, William Rawle, John Sergeant, Robert Vaux, Cadwallader + Colden, and Peter A. Jay,—to whom we may add Rufus King, James + Hillhouse, William Pinkney, Thomas Addis Emmett, Daniel D. Tompkins, + De Witt Clinton, James Kent, and Daniel Webster, besides eleven hundred + citizens of the District itself; headed by their Chief Justice and + judges—even the sovereign States of Pennsylvania, New-York, + Massachusetts, and Vermont, whose legislatures have either memorialized + Congress to abolish slavery in the District, or instructed their Senators to + move such a measure, must be gravely informed by Messrs. Clay, Norvell, Niles, + Smith, Pierce, Benton, Black, Tipton, and other honorable Senators, either + that their perception is so dull, they know not whereof they affirm, or that + their moral sense is so blunted they can demand without compunction a + violation of the nation's faith! + + </p> + <p> + We have spoken already of the concessions unwittingly made in this + + resolution to the true doctrine of Congressional power over the District. + For that concession, important as it is, we have small thanks to render. + That such a resolution, passed with such an <em>intent</em>, and pressing + at a thousand points on relations and interests vital to the free states, + should be hailed, as it has been, by a portion of the northern press as a + "compromise" originating in deference to northern interests, and to be + received by us as a free-will offering of disinterested benevolence, + demanding our gratitude to the mover,—may well cover us with shame. We + deserve the humiliation and have well earned the mockery. Let it come! + + </p> + <p> + If, after having been set up at auction in the public sales-room of the + nation, and for thirty years, and by each of a score of "compromises," + treacherously knocked off to the lowest bidder, and that without money and + without price, the North, plundered and betrayed, <em>will not</em>, in + this her accepted time, consider the things that belong to her peace before + they are hidden from her eyes, then let her eat of the fruit of her own way, + and be filled with her own devices! Let the shorn and blinded giant grind in + the prison-house of the Philistines, till taught the folly of intrusting to + Delilahs the secret and the custody of his strength. + + </p> + <p> + Have the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the + lessons of experience? If lost to <em>reason</em>, are they dead to + <em>instinct</em> also? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self + preservation? And shall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal + sacrifice? + + </p> + <p> + A "COMPROMISE!" Bitter irony! Is the plucked and hood-winked + North to be wheedled by the sorcery of another Missouri compromise? A + compromise in which the South gained all, and the North lost all, and lost it + for ever. A compromise which embargoed the free laborer of the North and + West, and clutched at the staff he leaned upon, to turn it into a bludgeon and + fell him with its stroke. A compromise which wrested from liberty her + boundless birthright domain, stretching westward to the sunset, while it gave + to slavery loose reins and a free course, from the Mississippi to the Pacific. + + </p> + <p> + The resolution, as it finally passed, is here inserted. The original + Resolution, as moved by Mr. Clay, was inserted at the head of this postscript + with the impression that it was the <em>amended</em> form. It will be seen + however, that it underwent no material modification. + + </p> + <p> + "Resolved, That the interference by the citizens of any of the states, + with the view to the abolition of slavery in the District, is endangering the + rights and security of the people of the District; and that any act or measure + of Congress designed to abolish slavery in the District, would be a violation + of the faith implied in the cessions by the states of Virginia and Maryland, + a just cause of alarm to the people of the slaveholding states, and + have a direct and inevitable tendency to disturb and endanger the Union." + + </p> + <p> + The vote upon the Resolution stood as follows: + + </p> + <p><i>Yeas</i>.—Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benton, Black, + Buchanan, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, of Alabama, Clay, of Kentucky, Clayton, + Crittenden, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, + Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Preston, Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smith, of + Connecticut, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, White, Williams, Wright, + Young. + + </p> + <p><i>Nays</i>.—Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, + PRENTISS, RUGGLES, SMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER. + + </p> + </div> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h2><a name="E5wA"></a><br><br><br> + THE + <br><br> + ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER + <br> + No. 5 + <br><br><br> + * * * * * + <br><br> + THE + <br><br> + POWER OF CONGRESS + <br><br> + OVER THE + <br><br> + DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. + + </h2> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + <p> + ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF + "WYTHE." + + </p> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + <p> + WITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR. + + </p> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + NEW-YORK: + + <p> + PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY + <br> + NO. 143 NASSAU-STREET. + + </p> + <p> + 1838. + + </p> + <p><br> + * * * * * + <br></p> + <p> + This periodical contains 3-1/2 sheets—Postage under 100 miles, 6 cts., + over 100, 10 cts. + + </p> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E5wA_prelim"></a> + POWER OF CONGRESS + <br> + OVER THE + <br> + DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. + + </h3> + <p> + A civilized community presupposes a government of law. If + that government be a republic, its citizens are the sole <em>sources</em>, + as well as the <em>subjects</em> of its power. Its constitution is their + bill of directions to their own agents—a grant authorizing the exercise + of certain powers, and prohibiting that of others. In the Constitution of the + United States, whatever else may be obscure, the clause granting power to + Congress over the Federal District may well defy misconstruction. + Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 18: "The Congress shall have power to exercise + exclusive legislation, <em>in all cases whatsoever</em>, over such + District." Congress may make laws for the District "in all + <em>cases</em>," not of all <em>kinds</em>; not all <em>laws</em> + whatsoever, but laws "in all <em>cases</em> whatsoever." The grant + respects the <em>subjects</em> of legislation, <em>not</em> the moral + nature of the laws. The law-making power every where is subject to + <em>moral</em> restrictions, whether limited by constitutions or not. No + legislature can authorize murder, nor make honesty penal, nor virtue a crime, + nor exact impossibilities. In these and similar respects, the power of + Congress is held in check by principles, existing in the nature of + things, not imposed by the Constitution, but presupposed and assumed + by it. The power of Congress over the District is restricted only by + those principles that limit ordinary legislation, and, in some respects, + it has even wider scope. + + </p> + <p> + In common with the legislatures of the States, Congress cannot + constitutionally pass ex post facto laws in criminal cases, nor suspend + the writ of habeas corpus, nor pass a bill of attainder, nor abridge the + freedom of speech and of the press, nor invade the right of the people + to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, nor enact + laws respecting an establishment of religion. These are general limitations. + Congress cannot do these things <em>any where</em>. The exact + import, therefore, of the clause "in all cases whatsoever," is, <em>on all + subjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation</em>. Some + legislatures are restrained by constitutions, from the exercise of powers + strictly within the proper sphere of legislation. Congressional power + over the District has no such restraint. It traverses the whole field + of legitimate legislation. All the power which any legislature has + within its own jurisdiction, Congress holds over the District of Columbia. + + </p> + <p> + It has been objected that the clause in question respects merely + + police regulations, and that its sole design was to enable Congress to + protect itself against popular tumults. But if the convention that + framed the Constitution aimed to provide for a <em>single</em> case only, + why did they provide for "<em>all</em> cases whatsoever?" Besides, this + clause was opposed in many of the state conventions, because the grant of + power was not restricted to police regulations <em>alone</em>. In the + Virginia Convention, George Mason, the father of the Virginia Constitution, + Patrick Henry, Mr. Grayson, and others, assailed it on that ground. + Mr. Mason said, "This clause gives an unlimited authority in every + possible case within the District. He would willingly give them exclusive + power as far as respected the police and good government of + the place, but he would give them no more." Mr. Grayson said, that + control over the <em>police</em> was all-sufficient, and "that the + Continental Congress never had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases." + Patrick Henry said, "Is it consistent with any principle of prudence + or good policy, to grant <em>unlimited, unbounded authority?</em>" Mr. + Madison said in reply: "I did conceive that the clause under consideration + was one of those parts which would speak its own praise. When + any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves authority to + make laws to execute it.... The powers which are found + necessary to be given, are therefore delegated <em>generally</em>, and + particular and minute specification is left to the Legislature.... It is + not within the limits of human capacity to delineate on paper all those + particular cases and circumstances, in which legislation by the general + legislature, would be necessary." Governor Randolph said: "Holland + has no ten miles square, but she has the Hague where the deputies + of the States assemble. But the influence which it has given the + province of Holland, to have the seat of government within its territory, + subject in some respects to its control, has been injurious to the other + provinces." The wisdom of the convention is therefore manifest in + granting to Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the place of their session. + [<em>Deb. Va. Con.</em>, p. 320.] In the forty-third number of the + "Federalist," Mr. Madison says: "The indispensable necessity of + <em>complete</em> authority at the seat of government, carries its own + evidence with it." + + </p> + <p> + Finally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according + to the obvious import of its <em>terms</em>, is proved by the fact, that + Virginia proposed an amendment to the United States' Constitution at the time + of its adoption, providing that this clause "should be so construed as + to give power only over the <em>police and good government</em> of said + District," <em>which amendment was rejected.</em></p> + <p> + The former part of the clause under consideration, "Congress + shall have power to exercise <em>exclusive</em> legislation," gives + <em>sole</em> jurisdiction, and the latter part, "in all cases + whatsoever," defines the <em>extent</em> of it. Since, then, Congress is + the <em>sole</em> legislature within the District, and since its power is + limited only by the checks common to all legislatures, it follows that what + the law-making power is intrinsically competent to do <em>any</em> where, + Congress is competent to do in the District of + + Columbia. Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to state and + argue the <em>real question</em> at issue. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E5wA_sphere"></a> + IS THE LAW-MAKING POWER COMPETENT TO + ABOLISH SLAVERY WHEN NOT RESTRICTED IN THAT + PARTICULAR BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS—or, IS + THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE + SPHERE OF LEGISLATION? + + </h3> + <p> + In every government, absolute sovereignty exists <em>somewhere</em>. In + the United States it exists primarily with the <em>people</em>, and + <em>ultimate</em> sovereignty <em>always</em> exists with them. In + each of the States, the legislature possesses a <em>representative</em> + sovereignty, delegated by the people through the Constitution—the people + thus committing to the legislature a portion of their sovereignty, and + specifying in their constitutions the amount and the conditions of the grant. + That the <em>people</em> in any state where slavery exists, have the power + to abolish it, none will deny. If the legislature have not the power, it is + because <em>the people</em> have reserved it to themselves. Had they + lodged with the legislature "power to exercise exclusive legislation in all + cases whatsoever," they would have parted with their sovereignty over the + legislation of the State, and so far forth the legislature would have become + <em>the people</em>, clothed with all their functions, and as such + competent, <em>during the continuance of the grant</em>, to do whatever + the people might have done before the surrender of their power: consequently, + they would have the power to abolish slavery. The sovereignty of the District + of Columbia exists <em>somewhere</em>—where is it lodged? The + citizens of the District have no legislature of their own, no representation + in Congress, and no political power whatever. Maryland and Virginia have + surrendered to the United States their "full and absolute right and entire + sovereignty," and the people of the United States have committed to + Congress by the Constitution, the power to "exercise exclusive legislation + in all cases whatsoever over such District." + + </p> + <p> + Thus, the sovereignty of the District of Columbia, is shown to reside + solely in the Congress of the United States; and since the power of the + people of a state to abolish slavery within their own limits, results from + their entire sovereignty within that state, so the power of Congress to + abolish slavery in the District, results from its entire + <em>sovereignty</em> within the District. If it be objected that Congress + can have no more power over the District, than was held by the legislatures of + Maryland and Virginia, we ask what clause in the constitution graduates the + power of Congress by the standard of a state legislature? Was the United + States' constitution worked into its present shape under the measuring + line and square of Virginia and Maryland? and is its power to be bevelled + down till it can run in the grooves of state legislation? There is + a deal of prating about constitutional power over the District, as though + Congress were indebted for it to Maryland and Virginia. The powers + of those states, whether few or many, prodigies or nullities, have nothing + to do with the question. As well thrust in the powers of the Grand + + Lama to join issue upon, or twist papal bulls into constitutional tether, + with which to curb congressional action. The Constitution of the + United States gives power to Congress, and takes it away, and <em>it + alone</em>. Maryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution + <em>before</em> they ceded to the United States the territory of the + District. By their acts of cession, they abdicated their own sovereignty over + the District, and thus made room for that provided by the United States' + constitution, which sovereignty was to commence as soon as a cession of + territory by states, and its acceptance by Congress, furnished a sphere for + its exercise. That the abolition of slavery is within the sphere of + legislation, I argue, + + </p> + <p> + 2. FROM THE FACT, THAT SLAVERY, AS A LEGAL SYSTEM, IS THE + CREATURE OF LEGISLATION. The law, by <em>creating</em> slavery, not only + affirmed its <em>existence</em> to be within the sphere and under the + control of legislation, but equally, the <em>conditions</em> and + <em>terms</em> of its existence, and the <em>question</em> whether or + not it <em>should</em> exist. Of course legislation would not travel + <em>out</em> of its sphere, in abolishing what is <em>within</em> it, + and what was recognised to be within it, by its own act. Cannot legislatures + repeal their own laws? If law can take from a man his rights, + it can give them back again. If it can say, "your body belongs to + your neighbor," it can say, "it belongs to <em>yourself</em>." If it can + annul a man's right to himself, held by express grant from his Maker, and + can create for another an <em>artificial</em> title to him, can it not + annul the artificial title, and leave the original owner to hold himself by + his original title? + + </p> + <p> + 3. THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED + WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE SPHERE OF LEGISLATION. Almost every + civilized nation has abolished slavery by law. The history of legislation + since the revival of letters, is a record crowded with testimony to + the universally admitted competency of the law-making power to + abolish slavery. It is so manifestly an attribute not merely of absolute + sovereignty, but even of ordinary legislation, that the competency of a + legislature to exercise it, may well nigh be reckoned among the legal + axioms of the civilized world. Even the night of the dark ages was + not dark enough to make this invisible. + + </p> + <p> + The Abolition decree of the great council of England was passed + in 1102. The memorable Irish decree, "that all the English slaves + in the whole of Ireland, be immediately emancipated and restored to + their former liberty," was issued in 1171. Slavery in England was + abolished by a general charter of emancipation in 1381. Passing + over many instances of the abolition of slavery by law, both during + the middle ages and since the reformation, we find them multiplying + as we approach our own times. In 1776 slavery was abolished in + Prussia by special edict. In St. Domingo, Cayenne, Guadeloupe, + and Martinique, in 1794, where more than 690,000 slaves were + emancipated by the French government. In Java, 1811; in Ceylon, + 1815; in Buenos Ayres, 1816; in St. Helena, 1819; in Colombia, + 1821; by the Congress of Chili in 1821; in Cape Colony, 1823; + + in Malacca, 1825; in the southern provinces of Birmah, 1826; in + Bolivia, 1826; in Peru, Guatemala, and Monte Video, 1828, in + Jamaica, Barbadoes, Bermudas, Bahamas, the Mauritius, St. Christophers, + Nevis, the Virgin Islands, Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, St. + Vincents, Grenada, Berbice, Tobago, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Honduras, + Demarara, and the Cape of Good Hope, on the 1st of August, 1834. + But waving details, suffice it to say, that England, France, Spain, + Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Prussia, and Germany, have all + and often given their testimony to the competency of the legislative + power to abolish slavery. In our own country, the Legislature of + Pennsylvania passed an act of abolition in 1780, Connecticut, in 1784; + Rhode Island, 1784; New-York, 1799; New-Jersey, in 1804; Vermont, + by Constitution, in 1777; Massachusetts, in 1780; and New + Hampshire, in 1784. + + </p> + <p> + When the competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery, + has thus been recognised every where and for ages, when it has been + embodied in the highest precedents, and celebrated in the thousand + jubilees of regenerated liberty, is it an achievement of modern discovery, + that such a power is a nullity?—that all these acts of abolition + are void, and that the millions disenthralled by them, are, either themselves + or their posterity, still legally in bondage? + + </p> + <p> + 4. LEGISLATIVE POWER HAS ABOLISHED SLAVERY IN ITS PARTS. + The law of South Carolina prohibits the working of slaves more than + fifteen hours in the twenty-four. In other words, it takes from the + slaveholder his power over nine hours of the slave's time daily; and if + it can take nine hours it may take twenty-four. The laws of Georgia + prohibit the working of slaves on the first day of the week; and if + they can do it for the first, they can for the six following. + + </p> + <p> + The law of North Carolina prohibits the "immoderate" correction + of slaves. If it has power to prohibit immoderate correction, it can + prohibit <em>moderate</em> correction—<em>all</em> correction, + which would be virtual emancipation; for, take from the master the power to + inflict pain, and he is master no longer. Cease to ply the slave with the + stimulus of fear; and he is free. + + </p> + <p> + The Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power + to make laws "to oblige the owners of slaves to <em>treat them with + humanity</em>." The Constitution of Missouri has the same clause, and an + additional one making it the DUTY of the legislature to pass such laws + as may be necessary to secure the <em>humane</em> treatment of the + slaves. This grant to those legislatures, empowers them to decide what + <em>is</em> and what is <em>not</em> "humane treatment." Otherwise it + gives no "power"—the clause is mere waste paper, and flouts in the face + of a befooled legislature. A clause giving power to require "humane treatment" + covers all the <em>particulars</em> of such treatment—gives power to + exact it in <em>all respects—requiring</em> certain acts, and + <em>prohibiting</em> others—maiming, branding, chaining together, + separating families, floggings for learning the alphabet, for reading the + Bible, for worshiping God according to conscience—the legislature has + power to specify each of + + these acts—declare that it is not "<em>humane</em> treatment," and + PROHIBIT it.—The legislature may also believe that driving men and women + into the field, and forcing them to work without pay, is not "humane + treatment," and being Constitutionally bound "to <em>oblige</em>" masters + to practise "humane treatment"—they have the power to <em>prohibit + such</em> treatment, and are bound to do it. + + </p> + <p> + The law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the + holder, if he be also a <em>land</em> holder, to separate them from the + soil.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE5wA_FN1"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE5wA_FN1"></a> If it has power to prohibit the sale + <em>without</em> the soil, it can prohibit the sale <em>with</em> it; + and if it can prohibit the <em>sale</em> as property, it can prohibit + the <em>holding</em> as property. Similar laws exist in the French, + Spanish, and Portuguese colonies. + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE5wA_FN1"></a><a href="#FootE5wA_FN1">A</a>: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law + passed in 1705. (<em>Beverly's Hist. of Va</em>., p. 98.) I do not find + the precise time when this law was repealed, probably when Virginia became the + chief slave breeder for the cotton-growing and sugar-planting country, and + made young men and women "from fifteen to twenty-five" the main staple + production of the State. + </p> + <p> + The law of Louisiana requires the master to give his slaves a certain + amount of food and clothing. If it can oblige the master to give + the slave <em>one</em> thing, it can oblige him to give him another: if + food and clothing, then wages, liberty, his own body. + + </p> + <p> + By the laws of Connecticut, slaves may receive and hold property, + and prosecute suits in their own name as plaintiffs: [This last was also + the law of Virginia in 1795. See Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery," + p. 73.] There were also laws making marriage contracts legal, in + certain contingencies, and punishing infringements of them, ["<em>Reeve's + Law of Baron and Femme</em>," p. 340-1.] Each of the laws enumerated + above, does, <em>in principle</em>, abolish slavery; and all of them + together abolish it in fact. True, not as a <em>whole</em>, and at a + <em>stroke</em>, nor all in one place; but in its <em>parts</em>, by + piecemeal, at divers times and places; thus showing that the abolition of + slavery is within the boundary of legislation. + + </p> + <p> + 5. THE COMPETENCY OF THE LAW-MAKING POWER TO ABOLISH SLAVERY, + HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY ALL THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES, EITHER + DIRECTLY OR BY IMPLICATION. Some States recognize it in their + <em>Constitutions</em>, by giving the legislature power to emancipate such + slaves as may "have rendered the state some distinguished service, "and + others by express prohibitory restrictions. The Constitution of Mississippi, + Arkansas, and other States, restrict the power of the legislature in this + respect. Why this express prohibition, if the law-making power + <em>cannot</em> abolish slavery? A stately farce, indeed, to construct a + special clause, and with appropriate rites induct it into the Constitution, + for the express purpose of restricting a nonentity!—to take from + the law-making power what it <em>never had</em>, and what + <em>cannot</em> pertain to it! The legislatures of those States have no + power to abolish slavery, simply because their Constitutions have expressly + <em>taken away</em> that power. The people of Arkansas, Mississippi, + &c., well knew the + + competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery, and hence + their zeal to <em>restrict</em> it. + + </p> + <p> + The slaveholding States have recognised this power in their <em>laws</em>. + The Virginia Legislature passed a law in 1786 to prevent the further + importation of Slaves, of which the following is an extract: "And be + it further enacted that every slave imported into this commonwealth + contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, shall upon such + importation become <em>free</em>." By a law of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, + 1792, a slave brought into the state and kept <em>there a year</em>, was + <em>free</em>. The Maryland Court of Appeals at the December term 1813 + [case of Stewart <i>vs.</i> Oakes,] decided that a slave + owned in Maryland, and sent by his master into Virginia to work at different + periods, making one year in the whole, became <em>free</em>, being + <em>emancipated</em> by the law of Virginia quoted above. North Carolina + and Georgia in their acts of cession, transferring to the United States the + territory now constituting the States of Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi, + made it a condition of the grant, that the provisions of the ordinance of '87, + should be secured to the inhabitants <em>with the exception of the sixth + article which prohibits slavery</em>; thus conceding, both the competency + of law to abolish slavery, and the power of Congress to do it, within its + jurisdiction. (These acts show the prevalent belief at that time, in the + slaveholding States, that the general government had adopted a line of + policy aiming at the exclusion of slavery from the entire territory of + the United States, not included within the original States, and that this + policy would be pursued unless prevented by specific and formal + stipulation.) + + </p> + <p> + Slaveholding states have asserted this power <em>in their judicial + decisions</em>. In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if + the legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has + been abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal emancipates + them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery. This + principle is asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, + in the case of Lunsford <i>vs.</i> Coquillon, 14 Martin's + La. Reps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter + <i>vs.</i> Fulcher, 1 Leigh's Reps. 172. The same doctrine + was laid down by Judge Washington, of the United States Supreme Court, in the + case of Butler <i>vs.</i> Hopper, Washington's Circuit + Court Reps. 508. This principle was also decided by the Court of Appeals in + Kentucky; case of Rankin <i>vs.</i> Lydia, 2 Marshall's + Reps. 407; see also, Wilson <i>vs.</i> Isbell, 5 Call's + Reps. 425, Spotts <i>vs.</i> Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps. + 566. The State <i>vs.</i> Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. + 60, Marie Louise <i>vs.</i> Mariot, 8 La. Reps. 475. In + this case, which was tried in 1836, the slave had been taken by her master to + France and brought back; Judge Mathews, of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, + decided that "residence for one moment" under the laws of France emancipated + her. + + </p> + <p> + 6. EMINENT STATESMEN, THEMSELVES SLAVEHOLDERS, HAVE CONCEDED + THIS POWER. Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated + + April 12, 1786, says: "There is not a man living, who wishes more + sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery; + but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be + accomplished, and that is by <em>legislative</em> authority." In a letter + to Lafayette, dated May 10, 1786, he says: "It (the abolition of slavery) + certainly might, and assuredly ought to be effected, and that too by + <em>legislative</em> authority." In a letter to John Fenton Mercer, dated + Sept. 9, 1786, he says: "It is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted + by which slavery in this country may be abolished by <em>law</em>." In a + letter to Sir John Sinclair, he says: "There are in Pennsylvania, + <em>laws</em> for the gradual abolition of slavery, which neither Maryland + nor Virginia have at present, but which nothing is more certain than that + they <em>must have</em>, and at a period not remote." Speaking of + movements in the Virginia Legislature in 1777, for the passage of a law + emancipating the slaves, Mr. Jefferson says: "The principles of the amendment + were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a + certain day; but it was found that the public mind would not bear the + proposition, yet the day is not far distant, when <em>it must bear and + adopt it</em>."—Jefferson's Memoirs, v. 1, p. 35. It is well known + that Jefferson, Pendleton, Mason, Wythe and Lee, while acting as a committee + of the Virginia House of Delegates to revise the State Laws, prepared a plan + for the gradual emancipation of the slaves by law. These men were + the great lights of Virginia. Mason, the author of the Virginia Constitution; + Pendleton, the President of the memorable Virginia Convention + in 1787, and President of the Virginia Court of Appeals; + Wythe was the Blackstone of the Virginia bench, for a quarter of a + century Chancellor of the State, the professor of law in the University + of William and Mary, and the preceptor of Jefferson, Madison, and + Chief Justice Marshall. He was author of the celebrated remonstrance + to the English House of Commons on the subject of the stamp act. As + to Jefferson, his <em>name</em> is his biography. + + </p> + <p> + Every slaveholding member of Congress from the States of Maryland, + Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, voted for the + celebrated ordinance of 1787, which <em>abolished</em> the slavery then + existing in the Northwest Territory. Patrick Henry, in his well known letter + to Robert Pleasants, of Virginia, January 18, 1773, says: "I believe + a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to <em>abolish</em> + this lamentable evil." William Pinkney, of Maryland, advocated the abolition + of slavery by law, in the legislature of that State, in 1789. Luther + Martin urged the same measure both in the Federal Convention, and + in his report to the Legislature of Maryland. In 1796, St. George + Tucker, of Virginia, professor of law in the University of William and + Mary, and Judge of the General Court, published an elaborate dissertation + on slavery, addressed to the General Assembly of the State, and + urging upon them the abolition of slavery by <em>law</em>. + + </p> + <p> + John Jay, while New York was yet a slave State, and himself in + law a slaveholder, said in a letter from Spain, in 1786, "An excellent + law might be made out of the Pennsylvania one, for the gradual abolition + + of slavery. Were I in your legislature, I would present a bill for the + purpose, drawn up with great care, and I would never cease moving it till + it became a law, or I ceased to be a member." + + </p> + <p> + Daniel D. Tompkins, in a message to the Legislature of New-York + January 8, 1812, said: "To devise the means for the gradual and ultimate + <em>extermination</em> from amongst us of slavery, is a work worthy the + representatives of a polished and enlightened nation." + + </p> + <p> + The Virginia Legislature asserted this power in 1832. At the + close of a month's debate, the following proceedings were had. I + extract from an editorial article of the Richmond Whig, of January 26, + 1832. + + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + "The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on + the subject of Abolition, was in these words: <em>Resolved</em>, as the + opinion of this Committee, that it is INEXPEDIENT FOR THE PRESENT, to make + any <em>legislative enactments for the abolition of Slavery</em>." This + Report Mr. Preston moved to reverse, and thus to declare that it + <em>was</em> expedient, <em>now</em> + to make legislative enactments for the abolition of slavery. This was + meeting the question in its strongest form. It demanded action, and immediate + action. On this proposition the vote was 58 to 73. Many of the most decided + friends of abolition voted against the amendment; because they thought public + opinion not sufficiently prepared for it, and that it might prejudice the + cause to move too rapidly. The vote on Mr. Witcher's motion to postpone the + whole subject indefinitely, indicates the true state of opinion in the + House.—That was the test question, and was so intended and proclaimed by + its mover. That motion was <em>negatived</em>, 71 to 60; showing + a majority of 11, who by that vote, declared their belief that "at the proper + time, and in the proper mode, Virginia ought to commence a system of + gradual abolition." + + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + 7. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE ASSERTED THIS + POWER. The ordinance of '87, declaring that there should be "neither + slavery nor involuntary servitude," in the North Western territory, + abolished the slavery then existing there. The Supreme Court of + Mississippi, in its decision in the case of Harvey vs. Decker, Walker's + Mi. Reps. 36, declared that the ordinance emancipated the slaves then + held there. In this decision the question is argued ably and at great + length. The Supreme Court of La. made the same decision in the + case of Forsyth vs. Nash, 4 Martin's La. Reps. 395. The same doctrine + was laid down by Judge Porter, (late United States Senator from + La.,) in his decision at the March term of the La. Supreme + Court, 1830, in the case of Merry vs. Chexnaider, 20 Martin's + Reps. 699. + + </p> + <p> + That the ordinance abolished the slavery then existing there is also + shown by the fact, that persons holding slaves in the territory petitioned for + the repeal of the article abolishing slavery, assigning + <em>that</em> as a reason. "The petition of the citizens of Randolph and + St. Clair counties in the Illinois country, stating that they were in + possession of slaves, and praying the repeal of that act (the 6th article of + the ordinance + + of '87) and the passage of a law legalizing slavery there." + [Am. State papers, Public Lands, v. 1. p. 69.] Congress passed this + ordinance before the United States Constitution was adopted, when it + derived all its authority from the articles of Confederation, which conferred + powers of legislation far more restricted than those conferred on + Congress over the District and Territories by the United States Constitution. + Now, we ask, how does the Constitution <em>abridge</em> the powers + which Congress possessed under the articles of confederation? + + </p> + <p> + The abolition of the slave trade by Congress, in 1808, is another + illustration of the competency of legislative power to abolish slavery. + The African slave trade has become such a mere <em>technic</em>, in common + parlance, that the fact of its being <em>proper slavery</em> is + overlooked. The buying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of the + middle passage, were mere <em>incidents</em> of the slavery in which the + victims were held. Let things be called by their own names. When Congress + abolished the African slave trade, it abolished SLAVERY—supreme + slavery—power frantic with license, trampling a whole hemisphere + scathed with its fires, and running down with blood. True, Congress + did not, in the abolition of the slave trade, abolish <em>all</em> the + slavery within its jurisdiction, but it did abolish all the slavery in + <em>one</em> part of its jurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to + abolish slavery in <em>another</em> part of its jurisdiction, especially + in that part where it has "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?" + + </p> + <p> + 8. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNISES THIS + POWER BY THE MOST CONCLUSIVE IMPLICATION. In Art. 1, sec. 3, clause + 1, it prohibits the abolition of the slave trade previous to 1808: thus + implying the power of Congress to do it at once, but for the restriction; + and its power to do it <em>unconditionally</em>, when that restriction + ceased. Again; In Art. 4, sec. 2, "No person held to service or labor in one + state under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence + of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from said service or + labor." This clause was inserted, as all admit, to prevent the runaway + slave from being emancipated by the <em>laws</em> of the free states. + If these laws had <em>no power</em> to emancipate, why this constitutional + guard to prevent it? + + </p> + <p> + The insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists + that framed the Constitution, to the existence of the <em>power</em>, and + their public proclamation, that the abolition of slavery was within the + appropriate sphere of legislation. The right of the owner to that which + is rightfully property, is founded on a principle of <em>universal + law</em>, and is recognised and protected by all civilized nations; property + in slaves is, by general consent, an <em>exception</em>; hence + slaveholders insisted upon the insertion of this clause in the United States + Constitution, that they might secure by an <em>express provision</em>, + that from which protection is withheld, by the acknowledged principles of + universal law.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE5wA_FN2"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE5wA_FN2"></a> By demanding + + this provision, slaveholders consented that their slaves should + not be recognised as property by the United States Constitution, and + hence they found their claim, on the fact of their being + "<i>persons</i>, and <i>held</i> to + service." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE5wA_FN2"></a><a href="#FootE5wA_FN2">A</a>: The fact, that under the articles of + Confederation, slaveholders, whose slaves had escaped into free states, had + no legal power to force them back,—that <em>now</em> they have no + power to recover, by process of law, their slaves who escape + to Canada, the South American States, or to Europe—the case already + cited, in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana decided, that residence + "<em>for one moment</em>," under the laws of France emancipated an + American slave—the case of Fulton <i>vs.</i>. Lewis, + 3 Har. and John's Reps., 56, where the slave of a St. Domingo slaveholder, who + brought him to Maryland in '93, was pronounced free by the Maryland Court of + Appeals—are illustrations of the acknowledged truth here asserted, that + by the consent of the civilized world, and on the principles + of universal law, slaves are not "<i>property</i>," and + that whenever held as property under <i>law</i>, it is + only by <i>positive legislative acts</i>, forcibly + setting aside the law of nature, the common law, and the principles of + universal justice and right between man and man,—principles paramount + to all law, and from which alone law, derives its intrinsic authoritative + sanction. + </p> + <p> + 9. CONGRESS HAS UNQUESTIONABLE POWER TO ADOPT THE COMMON + LAW, AS THE LEGAL SYSTEM, WITHIN ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.—This has + been done, with certain restrictions, in most of the States, + either by legislative acts or by constitutional implication. THE COMMON + LAW KNOWS NO SLAVES. Its principles annihilate slavery wherever + they touch it. It is a universal, unconditional, abolition act. + Wherever slavery is a legal system, it is so only by + <i>statute</i> law, and in violation of the common law. + The declaration of Lord Chief Justice Holt, that, "by the common law, no man + can have property in another," is an acknowledged axiom, and based upon the + well known common law definition of property. "The subjects of dominion + or property are <i>things</i>, as contra-distinguished + from <i>persons</i>." Let Congress adopt the common law + in the District of Columbia, and slavery there is at once abolished. Congress + may well be at home in common law legislation, for the common law is the grand + element of the United States Constitution. All its + <i>fundamental</i> provisions are instinct with its + spirit; and its existence, principles, and paramount authority, are + presupposed and assumed throughout the whole. The preamble of the Constitution + plants the standard of the Common Law immovably in its foreground. "We, the + people of the United States, in order to ESTABLISH JUSTICE, &c., do ordain + and establish this Constitution;" thus proclaiming <em>devotion to</em> + JUSTICE, as the controlling motive in the organization of the Government, and + its secure establishment the chief object of its aims. By this most solemn + recognition, the common law, that grand legal embodyment of + "<em>justice</em>" and fundamental right—was made the Groundwork of + the Constitution, and intrenched behind its strongest munitions. The second + clause of Sec. 9, Art. 1; Sec. 4, Art. 2, and the last clause of Sec. 2, + Art. 3, with Articles 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the Amendments, are also express + recognitions of the common law as the presiding Genius of + the Constitution. + + </p> + <p> + By adopting the common law within its exclusive jurisdiction Congress + would carry out the principles of our glorious Declaration, and + follow the highest precedents in our national history and jurisprudence. + It is a political maxim as old as civil legislation, that laws should be + strictly homogeneous with the principles of the government whose will + they express, embodying and carrying them out—being indeed the + <em>principles themselves</em>, in preceptive form—representatives + alike of the nature and the power of the Government—standing + illustrations of its genius and spirit, while they proclaim and enforce its + authority. Who needs be told that slavery makes war upon the principles of the + Declaration, and the spirit of the Constitution, and that these and the + principles of the common law gravitate toward each other with irrepressible + affinities, and mingle into one? The common law came hither with + our pilgrim fathers; it was their birthright, their panoply, their glory, + and their song of rejoicing in the house of their pilgrimage. It + covered them in the day of their calamity, and their trust was under + the shadow of its wings. From the first settlement of the country, the + genius of our institutions and our national spirit have claimed it as a + common possession, and exulted in it with a common pride. A century + ago, Governor Pownall, one of the most eminent constitutional + jurists of colonial times, said of the common law, "In all the colonies + the common law is received as the foundation and main body of their + law." In the Declaration of Rights, made by the Continental Congress + at its first session in '74, there was the following resolution: + "Resolved, That the respective colonies are entitled to the common + law of England, and especially to the great and inestimable privilege + of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course + of that law." Soon after the organization of the general government, + Chief Justice Ellsworth, in one of his decisions on the bench of + the United States Supreme Court, said: "The common law of this + country remains the same as it was before the revolution." Chief + Justice Marshall, in his decision in the case of Livingston + <i>vs.</i> Jefferson, said: "When our ancestors migrated + to America, they brought with them the common law of their native country, so + far as it was applicable to their new situation, and I do not conceive that + the revolution in any degree changed the relations of man to man, or the law + which regulates them. In breaking our political connection with the parent + state, we did not break our connection with each other." [<em>Hall's + Law Journal, new series.</em>] Mr. Duponceau, in his "Dissertation on + the Jurisdiction of Courts in the United States," says, "I consider + the common law of England the + <i>jus commune</i> of the United States. + I think I can lay it down as a correct principle, that the common + law of England, as it was at the time of the Declaration of Independence, + still continues to be the national law of this country, + so far as it is applicable to our present state, and subject to the + modifications it has received here in the course of nearly half a + century." Chief Justice Taylor of North Carolina, in his decision in + the case of the State <i>vs.</i> Reed, in 1823, Hawkes' + N.C. Reps. 454, + + says, "a law of <em>paramount obligation to the statute</em>, was + violated by the offence—COMMON LAW founded upon the law of nature, and + confirmed by revelation." The legislation of the United States abounds + in recognitions of the principles of the common law, asserting their + paramount binding power. Sparing details, of which our national + state papers are full, we illustrate by a single instance. It was made + a condition of the admission of Louisiana into the Union, that the right + of trial by jury should be secured to all her citizens,—the United + States government thus employing its power to enlarge the jurisdiction + of the common law in this its great representative. + + </p> + <p> + Having shown that the abolition of slavery is within the competency + of the law-making power, when unrestricted by constitutional + provisions, and that the legislation of Congress over the District is + thus unrestricted, its power to abolish slavery there is established. + + </p> + <p> + We argue it further, from the fact, that slavery exists there <em>now</em> + by an act of Congress. In the act of 16th July, 1790, Congress accepted + portions of territory offered by the states of Maryland and Virginia, + and enacted that the laws, as they then were, should continue in + force, "until Congress shall otherwise by law provide." Under these + laws, adopted by Congress, and in effect re-enacted and made laws of + the District, the slaves there are now held. + + </p> + <p> + Is Congress so impotent in its own "exclusive jurisdiction" that it + <em>cannot</em> "otherwise by law provide?" If it can say, what + <em>shall</em> be considered property, it can say what shall + <em>not</em> be considered property. Suppose a legislature should enact + that marriage contracts shall be mere bills of sale, making a husband the + proprietor of his wife, as his <i>bona fide</i> property; + and suppose husbands should herd their wives in droves for the market as + beasts of burden, or for the brothel as victims of lust, and then prate about + their inviolable legal property, and deny the power of the legislature, which + stamped them "property," to undo its own wrong, and secure to wives by law the + rights of human beings. Would such cant about "legal rights" be heeded where + reason and justice held sway, and where law, based upon fundamental + morality, received homage? If a frantic legislature pronounces + woman a chattel, has it no power, with returning reason, to take + back the blasphemy? Is the impious edict irrepealable? Be it, that + with legal forms it has stamped wives "wares." Can no legislation + blot out the brand? Must the handwriting of Deity on human nature + be expunged for ever? Has law no power to stay the erasing + pen, and tear off the scrawled label that covers up the IMAGE OF GOD? + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E5wA_univconc"></a> + II. THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY + IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN, TILL RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY + CONCEDED. + + </h3> + <p> + 1. IT HAS BEEN ASSUMED BY CONGRESS ITSELF. The following record + stands on the journals of the House of Representatives for 1804, + p. 225: "On motion made and seconded that the House do come to + the following resolution: 'Resolved, That from and after the 4th day + + of July, 1805, all blacks and people of color that shall be born within + the District of Columbia, or whose mothers shall be the property of + any person residing within said District, shall be free, the males at + the age of ----, and the females at the age of ----. The main question + being taken that the house do agree to said motion as originally proposed, it + was negatived by a majority of 46.'" Though the motion was lost, it was on + the ground of its alleged <em>inexpediency</em> alone. In the debate which + preceded the vote, the <em>power</em> of Congress was conceded. In March, + 1816, the House of Representatives passed the following + resolution:—"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to + inquire into the existence of an inhuman and illegal traffic in slaves, + carried on in and through the District of Columbia, and to report + whether any and what measures are necessary for <em>putting a stop to the + same</em>." + + </p> + <p> + On the 9th of January, 1829, the House of Representatives passed + the following resolution by a vote of 114 to 66: "Resolved, That the + Committee on the District of Columbia, be instructed to inquire into + the <em>expediency</em> of providing by <em>law</em> for the gradual + abolition of slavery within the District, in such manner that the interests + of no individual shall be injured thereby." Among those who voted in the + affirmative were Messrs. Barney of Md., Armstrong of Va., A.H. Shepperd of + N.C., Blair of Tenn., Chilton and Lyon of Ky., Johns of Del., and + others from slave states. + + </p> + <p> + 2. IT HAS BEES CONCEDED BY COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS, OF THE + DISTRICT of COLUMBIA.—In a report of the committee on the District, + Jan. 11, 1837, by their chairman, Mr. Powell of Va., there is the following + declaration:—"The Congress of the United States, has by the + constitution exclusive jurisdiction over the District, and has power + upon this subject, (<i>slavery</i>,) as upon all other + subjects of legislation, to exercise <em>unlimited discretion</em>." Reps. + of Comms. 2d Sess. 19th Cong. v. iv. No. 43. In December, 1831, the committee + on the District, Dr. Doddridge of Va., Chairman, reported, "That until the + adjoining states act on the subject, (slavery) it would be (not + <i>unconstitutional</i> but) unwise and impolitic, if + not unjust, for Congress to interfere." In April, 1836, a special committee + on abolition memorials reported the following resolutions by their Chairman, + Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina: "Resolved, That Congress possesses no + constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of + slavery in any of the states of this confederacy." + + </p> + <p> + "Resolved, That Congress <em>ought not to interfere</em> in any way with + slavery in the District of Columbia." "Ought not to interfere," carefully + avoiding the phraseology of the first resolution, and thus in effect + conceding the constitutional power. In a widely circulated "Address + to the electors of the Charleston District," Mr. Pinkney is thus denounced + by his own constituents: "He has proposed a resolution + which is received by the plain common sense of the whole country as + a concession that Congress has authority to abolish slavery in the + District of Columbia." + + </p> + <p> + 3. IT HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY THE CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT. A petition for the + gradual abolition of slavery in the District, signed by nearly eleven + hundred of its citizens, was presented to Congress, March 24, 1827. Among the + signers to this petition, were Chief Justice Cranch, Judge Van Ness, + Judge Morsel, Prof. J.M. Staughton, and a large number of the most + influential inhabitants of the District. Mr. Dickson, of New York, asserted + on the floor of Congress in 1835, that the signers of this petition owned + more than half of the property in the District. The accuracy of this + statement has never been questioned. + + </p> + <p> + THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY GRAND JURIES OF THE DISTRICT. The Grand + jury of the county of Alexandria, at the March term, 1802, presented the + domestic slave trade as a grievance, and said, "We consider these grievances + demanding <i>legislative</i> redress." Jan. 19, 1829, Mr. + Alexander, of Virginia, presented a representation of the grand jury in the + city of Washington, remonstrating against "any measure for the abolition + of slavery within said District, unless accompanied by measures for the + removal of the emancipated from the same;" thus, not only conceding the + power to emancipate slaves, but affirming an additional power, that + of <em>excluding them when free</em>. Journal H.R. 1828-9, p. 174. + + </p> + <p> + 4. THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY STATE LEGISLATURES. In 1828 the Legislature + of Pennsylvania instructed their Senators in Congress "to procure, if + practicable, the passage of a law to abolish slavery in the District of + Columbia." Jan. 28, 1829, the House of Assembly of New-York passed a + resolution, that their "Senators in Congress be instructed to make every + possible exertion to effect the passage of a law for the abolition of Slavery + in the District of Columbia." In February, 1837, the Senate of Massachusetts + "Resolved, That Congress having exclusive legislation in the District of + Columbia, possess the right to abolish slavery and the slave trade + therein." The House of Representatives passed the following resolution + at the same session: "Resolved, That Congress having exclusive legislation + in the District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish slavery in + said District." + + </p> + <p> + November 1, 1837, the Legislature of Vermont, "Resolved, that Congress have + the full power by the constitution to abolish slavery and the slave trade + in the District of Columbia, and in the territories." + + </p> + <p> + May 30, 1836, a committee of the Pennsylvania Legislature reported the + following resolution: "Resolved, That Congress does possess the + constitutional power, and it is expedient to abolish slavery and the slave + trade within the District of Columbia." + + </p> + <p> + In January, 1836, the Legislature of South Carolina "Resolved, That we + should consider the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia as a + violation of the rights of the citizens of that District derived from the + <em>implied</em> conditions on which that territory was + ceded to the General Government." Instead of denying the constitutional power, + they virtually admit its existence, by striving to smother it under an + <em>implication</em>. In February, 1836, the Legislature of North Carolina + "Resolved, That, although by the Constitution <em>all legislative + power</em> over the District of Columbia is vested in the Congress of the + United States, yet we would deprecate any legislative action on the part of + that body towards liberating the slaves of that District, as a breach of + faith towards those States by whom the territory was originally ceded. + Here is a full concession of the <em>power</em>. February 2, 1836, the + Virginia Legislature passed unanimously the following resolution: "Resolved, + by the General Assembly of Virginia, that the following article + be proposed to the several states of this Union, and to Congress, as an + amendment of the Constitution of the United States: "The powers of + Congress shall not be so construed as to authorize the passage of any + law for the emancipation of slaves in the District of Columbia, without + the consent of the individual proprietors thereof, unless by the sanction + of the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland, and under such conditions + as they shall by law prescribe." + + </p> + <p> + Fifty years after the formation of the United States' constitution the + states are solemnly called upon by the Virginia Legislature, to amend + that instrument by a clause asserting that, in the grant to Congress of + "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District, the + "case" of slavery is not included!! What could have dictated such + a resolution but the conviction that the power to abolish slavery is an + irresistible inference from the constitution <em>as it is</em>. The fact + that the same legislature passed afterward a resolution, though by no + means unanimously, that Congress does not possess the power, abates + not a tittle of the testimony in the first resolution. March 23d, 1824, + "Mr. Brown presented the resolutions of the General Assembly of + Ohio, recommending to Congress the consideration of a system for + the gradual emancipation of persons of color held in servitude in + the United States." On the same day, "Mr. Noble, of Indiana, communicated + a resolution from the legislature of that state, respecting + the gradual emancipation of slaves within the United States." Journal + of the United States Senate, for 1824-5, p. 231. + + </p> + <p> + The Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the + <em>general</em> power of Congress over the subject of slavery, do + virtually assert its <em>special</em> power within its + <em>exclusive</em> jurisdiction. + + </p> + <p> + 5. THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY BODIES OF CITIZENS IN + THE SLAVE STATES. The petition of eleven hundred citizens of the + District, has been already mentioned. "March 5, 1830, Mr. Washington + presented a memorial of inhabitants of the county of Frederick, + in the state of Maryland, praying that provision be made for the + gradual abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia." Journal + H.R. 1829-30, p. 358. + + </p> + <p> + March 30, 1828. Mr. A.H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, presented + a memorial of citizens of that state, "praying Congress to + take measures for the entire abolition of slavery in the District of + Columbia." Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 379. + + </p> + <p> + January 14, 1822. Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, presented a memorial + + of citizens of that state, praying "that provision may be made, + whereby all slaves which may hereafter be born in the District of Columbia, + shall be free at a certain period of their lives." Journal H.R. 1821-22, + p. 142. + + </p> + <p> + December 13, 1824. Mr. Saunders of North Carolina, presented + a memorial of citizens of that state, praying "that measures may be + taken for the gradual abolition of slavery in the United States." Journal + H.R. 1824-25, p. 27. + + </p> + <p> + December 16, 1828. "Mr. Barnard presented the memorial of + the American Convention for promoting the abolition of slavery, held + in Baltimore, praying that slavery may be abolished in the District + of Columbia." Journal U.S. Senate, 1828-29, p. 24. + + </p> + <p> + 6. DISTINGUISHED STATESMEN AND JURISTS IN THE SLAVEHOLDING + STATES, HAVE CONCEDED THIS POWER. The testimony of Messrs. + Doddridge, and Powell, of Virginia, Chief Justice Cranch, and Judges + Morsel and Van Ness, of the District, has already been given. In + the debate in Congress on the memorial of the Society of Friends, + in 1790, Mr. Madison, in speaking of the territories of the United + States, explicitly declared, from his own knowledge of the views of + the members of the convention that framed the constitution, as well + as from the obvious import of its terms, that in the territories, "Congress + have certainly the power to regulate the subject of slavery." + Congress can have no more power over the territories than that of + "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," consequently, according + to Mr. Madison, "it has certainly the power to regulate the subject + of slavery in the" <em>District</em>. In March, 1816, Mr. Randolph of + Va. introduced a resolution for putting a stop to the domestic slave + trade within the District. December 12, 1827, Mr. Barney, of Md. + presented a memorial for abolition in the District, and moved that it + be printed. Mr. McDuffie, of S.C., objected to the printing, but "expressly + admitted the right of Congress to grant to the people of the + District any measures which they might deem necessary to free themselves + from the deplorable evil."—[See letter of Mr. Claiborne of + Miss. to his constituents, published in the Washington Globe, May 9, + 1836.] The sentiments of Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, on the subject are + well known. In a speech before the U.S. Senate, in 1836, he declared + the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District "unquestionable." + Messrs. Blair, of Tenn., and Chilton, Lyon, and + R.M. Johnson, of Ky., A.H. Shepperd, of N.C., Messrs. Armstrong + and Smyth, of Va., Messrs. Dorsey, Archer, and Barney, of Md., and + Johns, of Del., with numerous others from slave states, have asserted + the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District. In the + speech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., on the Missouri question, January 28, + 1820, he says on this point: "If the future freedom of the blacks is + your real object, and not a mere pretence, why do you not begin + <em>here</em>? Within the ten miles square, you have + <em>undoubted power</em> to exercise exclusive legislation. + <em>Produce a bill to emancipate the slaves in the District of + Columbia</em>, or, if you prefer it, to emancipate those born + hereafter." + + </p> + <p> + To this may be added the testimony of the present Vice President + of the United States, Hon. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. + In a speech before the U.S. Senate, Feb. 1, 1820, (National Intelligencer, + April 20, 1820) he says: "In the District of Columbia, + containing a population of 30,000 souls, and probably as many slaves + as the whole territory of Missouri, THE POWER OF PROVIDING FOR + THEIR EMANCIPATION RESTS WITH CONGRESS ALONE. Why, then, + this heart-rending sympathy for the slaves of Missouri, and this cold + insensibility, this eternal apathy, towards the slaves in the District of + Columbia?" + + </p> + <p> + It is quite unnecessary to add, that the most distinguished northern + statesmen of both political parties, have always affirmed the power of + Congress to abolish slavery in the District: President Van Buren in + his letter of March 6, 1836, to a committee of gentlemen in North + Carolina, says, "I would not, from the light now before me, feel myself + safe in pronouncing that Congress does not possess the power of + abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia." This declaration + of the President is consistent with his avowed sentiments touching + the Missouri question, on which he coincided with such men as Daniel + D. Tompkins, De Witt Clinton, and others, whose names are a + host.<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE5wA_FN3"><sup>A</sup></a><a name="FootE5wA_FN3"></a> It is + consistent, also, with his recommendation in his late message, in + which, speaking of the District, he strongly urges upon Congress "a + thorough and careful revision of its local government," speaks of the + "entire dependence" of the people of the District "upon Congress," + recommends that a "uniform system of local government" be adopted, + and adds, that "although it was selected as the seat of the General + Government, the site of its public edifices, the depository of its + archives, and the residence of officers entrusted with large amounts + of public property, and the management of public business, yet it never + has been subjected to, or received, that <em>special</em> and + <em>comprehensive</em> legislation which these circumstances peculiarly + demanded." + + </p> + <p><a name="NoteE5wA_FN3"></a><a href="#FootE5wA_FN3">A</a>: Mr. Van Buren, when a member of the Senate of + New-York, voted for the following preamble and resolutions, which passed + unanimously:—Jan 28th, 1820. "Whereas the inhibiting the further + extension of slavery in the United States, is a subject of deep concern to + the people of this state: and whereas, we consider slavery as an evil much to + be deplored, and that <em>every constitutional barrier should be interposed + to prevent its further extension</em>: and that the constitution of the + United States <em>clearly gives congress the right</em> to require new + states, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States, to + <em>make the prohibition of slavery</em> a condition of their admission + into the Union: Therefore, + + + </p> + <p> + "Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our members of Congress + be requested, to oppose the admission as a state into the Union, of an + territory not comprised as aforesaid, without making <em>the prohibition of + slavery</em> therein an indispensable condition of admission." + </p> + <p> + The tenor of Mr. Tallmadge's speech on the right of petition, and + of Mr. Webster's on the reception of abolition memorials, may be + taken as universal exponents of the sentiments of northern statesmen + as to the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. + + </p> + <p> + An explicit declaration, that an "<em>overwhelming majority</em>" of the + <em>present</em> Congress concede the power to abolish slavery in the + District, has just been made by Hon. Robert Barnwell Rhett, a member of + Congress from South Carolina, in a letter published in the Charleston + Mercury of Dec. 27, 1837. The following is an extract: + + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + "The time has arrived when we must have new guaranties under + the constitution, or the Union must be dissolved. <em>Our views of the + constitution are not those of the majority</em>. AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY + <em>think that by the constitution, Congress may abolish slavery in the + District of Columbia—may abolish the slave trade between the States; + that is, it may prohibit their being carried out of the State in which they + are—and prohibit it in all the territories, Florida among them. They + think</em>, NOT WITHOUT STRONG REASONS, <em>that the power of Congress + extends to all of these subjects</em>." + + </p> + </blockquote> + <p><em>Direct testimony</em> to show that the power of Congress to abolish + slavery in the District, has always till recently been <em>universally + conceded</em>, is perhaps quite superfluous. We subjoin, however, the + following: + + </p> + <p> + The Vice-President of the United States in his speech on the Missouri + question, quoted above, after contending that the restriction of + slavery in Missouri would be unconstitutional, declares, that the power + of Congress over slavery in the District "COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED." + In the speech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., also quoted above, he declares + the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District to be "UNDOUBTED." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Sutherland, of Penn., in a speech in the House of Representatives, + on the motion to print Mr. Pinckney's Report, is thus reported + in the Washington Globe, of May 9th, '36. "He replied to the remark + that the report conceded that Congress had a right to legislate + upon the subject in the District of Columbia, and said that SUCH A + RIGHT HAD NEVER BEEN, TILL RECENTLY, DENIED." + + </p> + <p> + The American Quarterly Review, published at Philadelphia, with + a large circulation and list of contributors in the slave states, holds + the following language in the September No. 1833, p. 55: "Under + this 'exclusive jurisdiction,' granted by the constitution, Congress has + power to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia. + It would hardly be necessary to state this as a distinct proposition, + had it not been occasionally questioned. The truth of the assertion, + however, is too obvious to admit of argument—and we believe + HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY PERSONS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE + CONSTITUTION." + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E5wA_OBJ"></a> + OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED. + + </h3> + <p> + We now proceed to notice briefly the main arguments that have + been employed in Congress, and elsewhere against the power of Congress + + to abolish slavery in the District. One of the most plausible is; + that "the conditions on which Maryland and Virginia ceded the District + to the United States, would be violated, if Congress should + abolish slavery there." The reply to this is, that Congress had no power + to <em>accept</em> a cession coupled with conditions restricting that + "power of exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District," + which was given it by the constitution. + + </p> + <p> + To show the futility of the objection, we insert here the acts of + cession. The cession of Maryland was made in November, 1788, + and is as follows: "An act to cede to Congress a district of ten + miles square in this state for the seat of the government of the United + States." + + </p> + <p> + "Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, that the + representatives of this state in the House of Representatives of the + Congress of the United States, appointed to assemble at New-York, + on the first Wednesday of March next, be, and they are hereby + authorized and required on the behalf of this state, to cede to the Congress + of the United States, any district in this state, not exceeding ten + miles square, which the Congress may fix upon, and accept for the + seat of government of the United States." Laws of Md., v. 2., c. 46. + + </p> + <p> + The cession of Virginia was made on the 3d of December, 1788, + in the following words: + + </p> + <p> + "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That a tract of country, + not exceeding ten miles square, or any lesser quantity, to be located + within the limits of the State, and in any part thereof, as Congress + may, by law, direct, shall be, and the same is hereby forever ceded + and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, + in full and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil, + as of persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and + effect of the eighth section of the first article of the government of + the constitution of the United States." + + </p> + <p> + But were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act + had <em>none</em>. The Virginia act had this proviso: "Sect. 2. Provided, + that nothing herein contained, shall be construed to vest in the United + States any right of property in the soil, or to affect the rights of + individuals <em>therein</em>, otherwise than the same shall or may be + transferred by such individuals to the United States." + + </p> + <p> + This specification touching the soil was merely definitive and explanatory + of that clause in the act of cession, "<em>full and absolute right</em>." + Instead of restraining the power of Congress on <em>slavery</em> and other + subjects, it even gives it freer course; for exceptions to <em>parts</em> + of a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the + exceptions. If it was the <em>design</em> of the proviso to restrict + congressional action on the subject of <em>slavery</em>, + why is the <em>soil alone</em> specified? As legal instruments are not + paragons of economy in words, might not "John Doe," out of his abundance, + and without spoiling his style, have afforded an additional word—at + least a hint—that slavery was <em>meant</em>, though nothing was + <em>said</em> about it? + + </p> + <p> + But again, Maryland and Virginia, in their acts of cession, declare + them to be "in pursuance of" that clause of the constitution which + gives to Congress "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over" + the ten miles square—thus, instead of <em>restricting</em> that + clause, both States <em>confirm</em> it. Now, their acts of cession either + accorded with that clause of the constitution, or they conflicted with it. If + they conflicted with it, <em>accepting</em> the cessions was a violation + of the constitution. The fact that Congress accepted the cessions, proves that + in its view their <em>terms</em> did not conflict with its constitutional + grant of power. The inquiry whether these acts of cession were consistent + or inconsistent with the United States' constitution, is totally irrelevant + to the question at issue. What saith the CONSTITUTION? That + is the question. Not, what saith Virginia, or Maryland, or—equally + to the point—John Bull! If Maryland and Virginia had been the + authorized interpreters of the constitution for the Union, these acts + of cession could hardly have been magnified more than they have + been recently by the southern delegation in Congress. A true understanding + of the constitution can be had, forsooth, only by holding + it up in the light of Maryland and Virginia legislation! + + </p> + <p> + We are told, again, that those States would not have ceded the + District if they had supposed the constitution gave Congress power to + abolish slavery in it. + + </p> + <p> + This comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They + <em>knew</em> the constitution. They were parties to it. They had sifted + it clause by clause, in their State conventions. They had weighed its + words in the balance—they had tested them as by fire; and finally, + after long pondering, they <em>adopted</em> the constitution. And + <em>afterward</em>, self-moved, they ceded the ten miles square, and + declared the cession made "in pursuance of" that oft-cited clause, "Congress + shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever + over such District." And now verily "they would not have ceded if + they had <em>supposed</em>!" &c. Cede it they <em>did</em>, and + in "full and absolute right both of soil and persons." Congress accepted the + cession—state power over the District ceased, and congressional power + over it commenced—and now, the sole question to be settled is, + <em>the amount of power over the District, lodged in Congress by the + constitution</em>. The constitution—THE CONSTITUTION—that is the + point. Maryland and Virginia "suppositions" must be potent suppositions to + abrogate a clause of the United States' Constitution! That clause either gives + Congress power to abolish slavery in the District, or it does + <em>not</em>—and that point is to be settled, not by state + "suppositions," nor state usages, nor state legislation, but <em>by the + terms of the clause themselves</em>. + + </p> + <p> + Southern members of Congress, in the recent discussions, have + conceded the power of a contingent abolition in the District, by suspending + it upon the <em>consent</em> of the people. Such a doctrine from + <em>declaimers</em> like Messrs. Alford, of Georgia, and Walker, of + Mississippi, would excite no surprise; but that it should be honored with the + endorsement + + of such men as Mr. Rives and Mr. Calhoun, is quite unaccountable. Are + attributes of <em>sovereignty</em> mere creatures of + <em>contingency</em>? Is delegated <em>authority</em> mere conditional + <em>permission</em>? Is a <em>constitutional power</em> to be + exercised by those who hold it, only by popular <em>sufferance?</em> Must + it lie helpless at the pool of public sentiment, waiting the gracious + troubling of its waters? Is it a lifeless corpse, save only when popular + "consent" deigns to puff breath into its nostrils? Besides, if the consent of + the people of the District be necessary, the consent of the + <em>whole</em> people must be had—not that of a majority, + however large. Majorities, to be authoritative, must be + <em>legal</em>—and a legal majority without legislative power, or + right of representation, or even the electoral franchise, would be truly an + anomaly! In the District of Columbia, such a thing as a majority in a legal + sense is unknown to law. To talk of the power of a majority, or the will of a + majority there, is mere mouthing. A majority? Then it has an + authoritative will—and an organ to make it known—and an executive + to carry it into effect—Where are they? We repeat it—if the + consent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of <em>every + one</em> is necessary—and <em>universal</em> consent will come + only with the Greek Kalends and a "perpetual motion." A single individual + might thus <em>perpetuate</em> slavery in defiance of the expressed will + of a whole people. The most common form of this fallacy is given by Mr. Wise, + of Virginia, in his speech, February 16, 1835, in which he denied the + power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, unless the inhabitants + owning slaves petitioned for it!! Southern members of Congress + at the present session ring changes almost daily upon the same + fallacy. What! pray Congress <em>to use</em> a power which it <em>has + not</em>? "It is required of a man according to what he <em>hath</em>," + saith the Scripture. I commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would that he + had got his <em>logic</em> of him! If Congress does not possess the power, + why taunt it with its weakness, by asking its exercise? Why mock it by + demanding impossibilities? Petitioning, according to Mr. Wise, is, in + matters of legislation, omnipotence itself; the very <em>source</em> of + all constitutional power; for, <em>asking</em> Congress to do what it + <em>cannot</em> do, gives it the power—to pray the exercise of a + power that is <em>not, creates</em> it. A beautiful theory! Let us work it + both ways. If to petition for the exercise of a power that is + <em>not</em>, creates it—to petition against the exercise + of a power that <em>is</em>, annihilates it. As southern gentlemen are + partial to summary processes, pray, sirs, try the virtue of your own + recipe on "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever;" a better subject + for experiment and test of the prescription could not be had. But + if the petitions of the citizens of the District give Congress the + <em>right</em> to abolish slavery, they impose the <em>duty</em>; if + they confer constitutional <em>authority</em>, they create constitutional + <em>obligation</em>. If Congress <em>may</em> abolish because of an + expression of their will, it <em>must</em> abolish at the bidding + of that will. If the people of the District are a <em>source of power</em> + to Congress, their <em>expressed</em> will has the force of a + constitutional provision, + + and has the same binding power upon the National Legislature. + To make Congress dependent on the District for authority, is to make + it a <em>subject</em> of its authority, restraining the exercise of its + own discretion, and sinking it into a mere organ of the District's will. We + proceed to another objection. + + </p> + <p> + "<em>The southern states would not have ratified the constitution, if they + had supposed that it gave this power.</em>" It is a sufficient answer to + this objection, that the northern states would not have ratified it, if they + had supposed that it <em>withheld</em> the power. If "suppositions" are to + take the place of the constitution—coming from both sides, they + neutralize each other. To argue a constitutional question by + <em>guessing</em> at the "suppositions" that might have been made by the + parties to it, would find small favor in a court of law. But even a desperate + shift is some easement when sorely pushed. If this question is to be settled + by "suppositions" suppositions shall be forthcoming, and that + without stint. + + </p> + <p> + First, then, I affirm that the North ratified the constitution, "supposing" + that slavery had begun to wax old, and would speedily vanish + away, and especially that the abolition of the slave trade, which by the + constitution was to be surrendered to Congress after twenty years, + would cast it headlong. + + </p> + <p> + Would the North have adopted the constitution, giving three-fifths + of the "slave property" a representation, if it had "supposed" that + the slaves would have increased from half a million to two millions and + a half by 1838—and that the census of 1840 would give to the slave + states thirty representatives of "slave property?" + + </p> + <p> + If they had "supposed" that this representation would have controlled + the legislation of the government, and carried against the + North every question vital to its interests, would Hamilton, Franklin, + Sherman, Gerry, Livingston, Langdon, and Rufus King have been + such madmen, as to sign the constitution, and the Northern States + such suicides as to ratify it? Every self-preserving instinct would + have shrieked at such an infatuate immolation. At the adoption + of the United States constitution, slavery was regarded as a fast waning + system. This conviction was universal. Washington, Jefferson, + Henry, Grayson, Tucker, Madison, Wythe, Pendleton, Lee, Blair, + Mason, Page, Parker, Randolph, Iredell, Spaight, Ramsey, Pinkney, + Martin, McHenry, Chase, and nearly all the illustrious names south of + the Potomac, proclaimed it before the sun. A reason urged in the + convention that formed the United States constitution, why the word + slave should not be used in it, was, that <em>when slavery should + cease</em>, there might remain upon the National Charter no record that it + had ever been. (See speech of Mr. Burrill, of R.I., on the Missouri question.) + + </p> + <p> + I now proceed to show by testimony, that at the date of the United + States constitution, and for several years before and after that period, + slavery was rapidly on the wane; that the American Revolution with + the great events preceding, accompanying, and following it, had + + wrought an immense and almost universal change in the public sentiment + of the nation on the subject, powerfully impelling it toward the + entire abolition of the system—and that it was the <em>general + belief</em> that measures for its abolition throughout the Union, would be + commenced by the individual States generally before the lapse of many years. A + great mass of testimony establishing this position might be presented, + but narrow space, and the importance of speedy publication, counsel + brevity. Let the following proofs suffice. First, a few dates as points + of observation. + + </p> + <p> + The first <em>general</em> Congress met in 1774. The revolutionary war + commenced in '75. Independence was declared in '76. The articles + of confederation were adopted by the thirteen states in '78. Independence + acknowledged in '83. The convention for forming the U.S. + constitution was held in '87, the state conventions for considering it in + '87, and '88. The first Congress under the constitution in '89. + + </p> + <p> + Dr. Rush, of Pennsylvania, one of the signers of the Declaration + of Independence, in a letter to Granville Sharpe, May 1, 1773, says + "A spirit of humanity and religion begins to awaken in several of the + colonies in favor of the poor negroes. Great events have been brought + about by small beginnings. <em>Anthony Benezet stood alone a few years + ago in opposing negro slavery in Philadelphia</em>, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS + OF THE PROVINCE AS WELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST + IT."—[Stuart's Life of Sharpe, p. 21.] + + </p> + <p> + In the preamble to the act prohibiting the importation of slaves + into Rhode Island, June, 1774, is the following: "Whereas the inhabitants + of America are generally engaged in the preservation of their + own rights and liberties, among which that of personal freedom must + be considered the greatest, and as those who are desirous of enjoying + all the advantages of liberty themselves, <em>should be willing to extend + personal liberty to others</em>, therefore," &c. + + </p> + <p> + October 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: + "We, for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom + we represent, <em>firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of + virtue, honor, and love of our country</em>, as follows: + + </p> + <p> + "2d Article. We <em>will neither import nor purchase any slaves + imported</em> after the first day of December next, after which time we will + <em>wholly discontinue</em> the slave trade, and we will neither be + concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our + commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it." + + </p> + <p> + The Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and + the necessity for taking up arms, say: "<em>If it were possible</em> for + men who exercise their reason to believe that the divine Author of our + existence intended a part of the human race to <em>hold an absolute property + in, and unbounded power over others</em>," &c. + + </p> + <p> + In 1776, Dr. Hopkins, then at the head of New England divines, + in "An Address to the owners of negro slaves in the American colonies," + says: "The conviction of the unjustifiableness of this practice + (slavery) has been <em>increasing</em>, and <em>greatly spreading of + late</em>, and <em>many</em> + who have had slaves, have found themselves so unable to justify their + own conduct in holding them in bondage, as to be induced to <em>set them + at liberty</em>. * * * * Slavery + is, <em>in every instance</em>, wrong, unrighteous, and + oppressive—a very great and crying sin—<em>there being nothing + of the kind equal to it on the face of the earth.</em>" + + </p> + <p> + The same year the American Congress issued a solemn MANIFESTO + to the world. These were its first words: "We hold these truths to + be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed + by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these + are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." <em>Once</em>, these + were words of power; <em>now</em>, "a rhetorical flourish." + + </p> + <p> + The celebrated Patrick Henry of Virginia, in a letter, of Jan. 18, + 1773, to Robert Pleasants, afterwards president of the Virginia Abolition + Society, says: "Believe me, I shall honor the Quakers for their + noble efforts to abolish slavery. It is a debt we owe to the purity of + our religion to show that it is at variance with that law that warrants + slavery. I exhort you to persevere in so worthy a resolution." + + </p> + <p> + In 1779, the Continental Congress ordered a pamphlet to be published, + entitled, "Observations on the American Revolution," from + which the following is an extract: "The great principle (of government) + is and ever will remain in force, <em>that men are by nature free</em>; + and so long as we have any idea of divine <em>justice</em>, we must + associate that of <em>human freedom</em>. It is <em>conceded on all + hands, that the right to be free</em> CAN NEVER BE ALIENATED." + + </p> + <p> + Extract from the Pennsylvania act for the abolition of slavery, + passed March 1, 1780: * * "We + conceive that it is our duty, and we rejoice that it is in our power, to + extend a portion of that freedom to others which has been extended to us. + Weaned by a long course of experience from those narrow prejudices and + partialities we had imbibed, we find our hearts enlarged with kindness and + benevolence towards men of all conditions and nations: * * * Therefore + be it enacted, that no child born hereafter be a slave," &c. + + </p> + <p> + Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, written just before the close of + the Revolutionary War, says: "I think a change already perceptible + since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is + abating, that of the slave is rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, + <em>the way I hope preparing under the auspices of heaven</em>, FOR A + TOTAL EMANCIPATION." + + </p> + <p> + In a letter to Dr. Price, of London, who had just published a + pamphlet in favor of the abolition of slavery, Mr. Jefferson, then minister + at Paris, (August 7, 1785,) says: "From the mouth to the + head of the Chesapeake, <em>the bulk of the people will approve of your + pamphlet in theory</em>, and it will find a respectable minority ready to + <em>adopt it in practice</em>—a minority which, for weight and worth + of character, <em>preponderates against the greater number</em>." Speaking + of Virginia, he says: "This is the next state to which we may turn our + eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice + + and oppression,—a conflict in which THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING + DAILY RECRUITS. Be not, therefore, discouraged—what you have + written will do a <em>great deal of good</em>; and could you still + trouble yourself with our welfare, no man is more able to give aid to the + laboring side. The College of William and Mary, since the remodelling of its + plan, is the place where are collected together all the young men of + Virginia, under preparation for public life. They are there under the + direction (most of them) of a Mr. Wythe, one of the most virtuous of + characters, and <em>whose sentiments on the subject of slavery are + unequivocal.</em> I am satisfied, if you could resolve to address an + exhortation to those young men with all that eloquence of which you are + master, that <em>its influence on the future decision of this important + question would be great, perhaps decisive.</em> Thus, you see, that so far + from thinking you have cause to repent of what you have done, <em>I wish + you to do more, and wish it on an assurance of its + effect.</em>"—Jefferson's Posthumous Works, vol. 1, p. 268. + + </p> + <p> + In 1786, John Jay drafted and signed a petition to the Legislature + of New York, on the subject of slavery, beginning with these words: + "Your memorialists being deeply affected by the situation of those, + who, although FREE BY THE LAW OF GOD, are held in slavery by the + laws of the State," &c. This memorial bore also the signatures of + the celebrated Alexander Hamilton; Robert R. Livingston, afterward Secretary + of Foreign Affairs of the United States, and Chancellor of the State of + New-York; James Duane, Major of the City of New-York, and many others of the + most eminent individuals in the State. + + </p> + <p> + In the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated + a slave in 1784, is the following passage: + + </p> + <p> + "Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and + cannot, without injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery." + + </p> + <p> + In his letter while Minister at Spain, in 1786, he says, speaking + of the abolition of slavery: "Till America comes into this measure, + her prayers to heaven will be IMPIOUS. I believe God governs the + world; and I believe it to be a maxim in his, as in our court, that + those who ask for equity <em>ought to do it.</em>" + + </p> + <p> + In 1785, the New-York Manumission Society was formed. + John Jay was chosen its first President, and held the office for five years. + Alexander Hamilton was its second President, and after holding the + office one year, resigned upon his removal to Philadelphia as Secretary of + the United States' Treasury. In 1787, the Pennsylvania Abolition Society + was formed. Benjamin Franklin, warm from the discussions of the convention + that formed the U.S. constitution, was chosen President, and Benjamin Rush, + Secretary—both signers of the Declaration of Independence. In 1789, the + Maryland Abolition Society was formed. Among its officers were Samuel Chace, + Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Luther Martin, a member of the + convention that formed the U.S. constitution. In 1790, the Connecticut + Abolition Society was formed. The first President was Rev. Dr. + + Stiles, President of Yale College, and the Secretary, Simeon Baldwin, + (the late Judge Baldwin of New Haven.) In 1791, this Society sent + a memorial to Congress, from which the following is an extract: + + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + "From a sober conviction of the unrighteousness of slavery, your + petitioners have long beheld, with grief, our fellow men doomed to perpetual + bondage, in a country which boasts of her freedom. Your + petitioners are fully of opinion; that calm reflection will at last convince + the world, that the whole system of African slavery IS unjust in + its nature—impolitic in its principles—and, in its consequences, + ruinous to the industry and enterprise of the citizens of these States. From a + conviction of those truths, your petitioners were led, by motives, we + conceive, of general philanthropy, to associate ourselves for the protection + and assistance of this unfortunate part of our fellow men; and, + though this Society has been <em>lately</em> established, it has now + become <em>generally extensive</em> through this state, and, we fully + believe, <em>embraces, on this subject, the sentiments of a large majority + of its citizens.</em>" + + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + The same year the Virginia Abolition Society was formed. This + Society, and the Maryland Society, had auxiliaries in different parts + of those States. Both societies sent up memorials to Congress. The + memorial of the Virginia Society is headed—"The memorial of the + <em>Virginia Society</em>, for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, + &c." The following is an extract: + + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + "Your memorialists, fully believing that slavery is not only an odious + degradation, but an <em>outrageous violation of one of the most essential + rights of human nature, and utterly repugnant to the precepts of the + gospel</em>, lament that a practice so inconsistent with true policy and + the inalienable rights of men, should subsist in so enlightened an age, and + among a people professing, that all mankind are, by nature, equally + entitled to freedom." + + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + About the same time a Society was formed in New Jersey. It + had an acting committee of five members in each county in the State. + The following is an extract from the preamble to its constitution: + + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + "It is our boast, that we live under a government wherein <em>life</em>, + <em>liberty</em>, and the <em>pursuit of happiness</em>, are + recognized as the universal rights of men; and whilst we are anxious to + preserve these rights to ourselves, and transmit them inviolate, to our + posterity, we <em>abhor that inconsistent, illiberal, and interested policy, + which withholds those rights from an unfortunate and degraded class of our + fellow creatures.</em>" + + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + Among other distinguished individuals who were efficient officers + of these Abolition Societies, and delegates from their respective state + societies, at the annual meetings of the American convention for promoting + the abolition of slavery, were Hon. Uriah Tracy, United + States' Senator, from Connecticut; Hon. Zephaniah Swift, Chief Justice + of the same State; Hon. Cesar A. Rodney, Attorney General of + the United States; Hon. James A. Bayard, United States' Senator, + from Delaware; Governor Bloomfield, of New-Jersey; Hon. Wm. + Rawle, the late venerable head of the Philadelphia bar; Dr. Caspar + Wistar, of Philadelphia; Messrs. Foster and Tillinghast, of Rhode + + Island; Messrs. Ridgely, Buchanan, and Wilkinson, of Maryland; + and Messrs. Pleasants, McLean, and Anthony, of Virginia. + + </p> + <p> + In July, 1787, the old Congress passed the celebrated ordinance + abolishing slavery in the northwestern territory, and declaring that + it should never thereafter exist there. This ordinance was passed + while the convention that formed the United States' constitution was + in session. At the first session of Congress under the constitution, + this ordinance was ratified by a special act. Washington, fresh from + the discussions of the convention, in which <em>more than forty days had + been spent in adjusting the question of slavery, gave it his approval.</em> + The act passed with only one dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of + New York,) <em>the South equally with the North avowing the fitness and + expediency of the measure on general considerations, and indicating + thus early the line of national policy, to be pursued by the United + States' Government on the subject of slavery</em>. + + </p> + <p> + In the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, + afterward a Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, "<em>When + the entire abolition of slavery takes place</em>, it will be an event which + must be pleasing to every generous mind and every friend of human + nature." Mr. Galloway said, "I wish to see this abominable trade + put an end to. I apprehend the clause (touching the slave trade) + means <em>to bring forward manumission</em>." Luther Martin, of Maryland, + a member of the convention that formed the United States Constitution, said, + "We ought to authorize the General Government to make such regulations as + shall be thought most advantageous for <em>the gradual abolition of + slavery</em>, and the <em>emancipation of the slaves</em> which are + already in the States." Judge Wilson, of Pennsylvania, one of the + framers of the constitution, said, in the Pennsylvania convention of '87, + [Deb. Pa. Con. p. 303, 156:] "I consider this (the clause relative to + the slave trade) as laying the foundation for <em>banishing slavery out of + this country</em>. It will produce the same kind of gradual change which + was produced in Pennsylvania; the new states which are to be formed + will be under the control of Congress in this particular, and <em>slaves + will never be introduced</em> among them. It presents us with the pleasing + prospect that the rights of mankind will be acknowledged and established + <em>throughout the Union</em>. Yet the lapse of a few years, and + Congress will have power to <em>exterminate slavery</em> within our + borders." In the Virginia convention of '87, Mr. Mason, author of the Virginia + constitution, said, "The augmentation of slaves weakens the States, + and such a trade is <em>diabolical</em> in itself, and disgraceful to + mankind. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the + southern states, (i.e., South Carolina and Georgia,) into the union, + <em>unless they agree to a discontinuance of this disgraceful + trade</em>." Mr. Tyler opposed with great power the clause prohibiting the + abolition of the slave trade till 1808, and said, "My earnest desire is, that + it shall be handed down to posterity that I oppose this wicked clause." Mr. + Johnson said, "The principle of emancipation <em>has begun since the + revolution. Let us do what we will, it will come round</em>."—[Deb. + Va. + + Con. p. 463.] Patrick Henry, arguing the power of Congress under + the United States' constitution to abolish slavery in the States, said, in + the same convention, "Another thing will contribute to bring this + event (the abolition of slavery) about. Slavery is <em>detested</em>. We + feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the pity of + humanity."—[Deb. Va. Con. p. 431.] In the Mass. Con. of '88, Judge Dawes + said, "Although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet <em>it has + received a mortal wound</em>, and will die of consumption."—[Deb. + Mass. Con. p. 60.] General Heath said that, "Slavery was confined to the + States <em>now existing</em>, it <em>could not be extended</em>. By + their ordinance, Congress had declared that the new States should be + republican States, <em>and have no slavery</em>."—p. 147. + + </p> + <p> + In the debate, in the first Congress, February 11th and 12th, 1789, + on the petitions of the Society of Friends, and the Pennsylvania Abolition + Society, Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said, "I cannot help expressing + the pleasure I feel in finding <em>so considerable a part</em> of the + community attending to matters of such a momentous concern to the + <em>future prosperity</em> and happiness of the people of America. I think + it my duty, as a citizen of the Union, <em>to espouse their cause</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Page, of Virginia, (afterward Governor)—"Was <em>in favor</em> + of the commitment; he hoped that the designs of the respectable + memorialists would not be stopped at the threshold, in order to preclude a + fair discussion of the prayer of the memorial. With respect + to the alarm that was apprehended, he conjectured there was none; + but there might be just cause, if the memorial was <em>not</em> taken + into consideration. He placed himself in the case of a slave, and said, that + on hearing that Congress had refused to listen to the decent suggestions of + a respectable part of the community, he should infer, that + the general government, <em>from which was expected great good would + result to</em> EVERY CLASS <em>of citizens</em>, had shut their ears + against the voice of humanity, and he should despair of any alleviation of the + miseries he and his posterity had in prospect; if any thing could induce him + to rebel, it must be a stroke like this, impressing on his + mind all the horrors of despair. But if he was told, that application + was made in his behalf, and that Congress were willing to hear what + could be urged in favor of discouraging the practice of importing + his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their justice and humanity, + and <em>wait the decision patiently</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Scott of Pennsylvania: "I cannot, for my part, conceive + how any person <em>can be said to acquire a property in another</em>. Let + us argue on principles countenanced by reason, and becoming humanity. + <em>I do not know how far I might go, if I was one of the judges of the + United States, and those people were to came before me and claim + their emancipation, but I am sure I would go as far as I could</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, "He <em>saw the disposition of + the House</em>, and he feared it would he referred to a committee, maugre + all their opposition." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Smith of South Carolina, said, "That on entering into this + + government, they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that + the other states, * * <em>would, from motives of humanity and + benevolence, be led to vote for a general emancipation</em>." + + </p> + <p> + In the debate, at the same session, May 13th, 1789, on the petition of the + Society of Friends respecting the slave trade, Mr. Parker, + of Virginia, said, "He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their + power <em>to restore to human nature its inherent privileges</em>. The + inconsistency in our principles, with which we are justly charged + <em>should be done away</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, said, "IT WAS THE FASHION OF THE DAY + TO FAVOR THE LIBERTY OF THE SLAVES. * * * * Will Virginia set her negroes free? <em>When + this practice comes to be tried, then the sound of liberty will lose those + charms which make it grateful to the ravished ear</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Madison, of Virginia,—"The dictates of humanity, the principles of + the people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent + policy, require it of us. * * * * I conceive the constitution + in this particular was formed in order that the Government, whilst it + was restrained from laying a total prohibition, might be able to <em>give + some testimony of the sense of America</em>, with respect to the African + trade. * * * * It is to be hoped, that by expressing a + national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save + ourselves from reproaches, AND OUR POSTERITY THE IMBECILITY EVER + ATTENDANT ON A COUNTRY FILLED WITH SLAVES. If there is any one + point in which it is clearly the policy of this nation, so far as we + constitutionally can, <em>to vary the practice</em> obtaining + under some of the state governments, it is this. But it is + <em>certain</em> a majority of the states are <em>opposed to this + practice</em>."—Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12. + + </p> + <p> + A writer in the "Gazette of the United States," Feb. 20th, 1790, + (then the government paper,) who opposes the abolition of slavery, + and avows himself a <em>slaveholder</em>, says, "I have seen in the + papers accounts of <em>large associations</em>, and applications to + Government for <em>the abolition of slavery</em>. Religion, humanity, and + the generosity natural to a free people, are the <em>noble principles which + dictate those measures</em>. SUCH MOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY + EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW." + + </p> + <p> + In the convention that formed the constitution of Kentucky in + 1790, the effort to prohibit slavery was nearly successful. A decided + majority of that body would undoubtedly have voted for its exclusion, + but for the great efforts and influence of two large slaveholders—men + of commanding talents and sway—Messrs. Breckenridge and Nicholas. The + following extract from a speech made in that convention + by a member of it, Mr. Rice a native Virginian, is a specimen of + the <em>free discussion</em> that prevailed on that "delicate subject." + Said Mr. Rice: "I do a man greater injury, when I deprive him of his + liberty, than when I deprive him of his property. It is vain for me + to plead that I have the sanction of law; for this makes the injury + the greater—it arms the community against him, and makes his case + + desperate. The owners of such slaves then are <em>licensed robbers</em>, + and not the just proprietors of what they claim. Freeing them is not + depriving them of property, but <em>restoring it to the right owner</em>. + In America, a slave is a standing monument of the tyranny and inconsistency + of human governments. The master is the enemy of the + slave; he <em>has made open war upon him</em>, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT + ON in unremitted efforts. Can any one imagine, then, that the slave + is indebted to his master, and <em>bound to serve him</em>? Whence can the + obligation arise? What is it founded upon? What is my duty to an + enemy that is carrying on war against me? I do not deny, but in + some circumstances, it is the duty of the slave to serve; but it is a + duty he owes himself, and not his master." + + </p> + <p> + President Edwards, the younger, said, in a sermon preached before + the Connecticut Abolition Society, Sept. 15, 1791: "Thirty years + ago, scarcely a man in this country thought either the slave trade or + the slavery of negroes to be wrong; but now how many and able + advocates in private life, in our legislatures, in Congress, have + appeared, and have openly and irrefragably pleaded the rights of + humanity in this as well as other instances? And if we judge of the + future by the past, <em>within fifty years from this time, it will be as + shameful for a man to hold a negro slave, as to be guilty of common + robbery or theft</em>." + + </p> + <p> + In 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted + its "Scripture proofs," notes, comments, &c. Among these was the + following: + + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + "1 Tim. i. 10. The law is made for manstealers. This crime + among the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment. + Exodus xxi. 16. And the apostle here classes them with <em>sinners of + the first rank</em>. The word he uses, in its original import comprehends + all who are concerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, + or in <em>retaining</em> them in it. <em>Stealers of men</em> are all + those who bring off slaves or freemen, and <em>keep</em>, sell, or buy + them." + + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + In 1794, Dr. Rush declared: "Domestic slavery is repugnant to + the principles of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just + principle of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the + authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent + and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of + the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe, who has + solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men." + + </p> + <p> + In 1790, Mr. Fiske, then an officer of Dartmouth College, afterward + a Judge in Tennessee, said, in an oration published that year, + speaking of slaves: "I steadfastly maintain, that we must bring them + to <em>an equal standing, in point of privileges, with the whites</em>! + They must enjoy all the rights belonging to human nature." + + </p> + <p> + When the petition on the abolition of the slave trade was under discussion + in the Congress of '89, Mr. Brown, of North Carolina, said, + "The emancipation of the slaves <em>will be effected</em> in time; it + ought to be a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not + <i>precipitate</i> + it to the great injury of the southern States." Mr. Hartley, of + Pennsylvania, said, in the same debate, "<em>He was not a little surprised + to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house.</em>" WASHINGTON, + in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, says, "There are, in Pennsylvania, + laws for the gradual abolition of slavery which neither Maryland nor + Virginia have at present, but which <em>nothing is more certain</em> than + that they <em>must have</em>, and at a period NOT REMOTE." In 1782, + Virginia passed her celebrated manumission act. Within nine years from that + time nearly eleven thousand slaves were voluntarily emancipated by + their masters. Judge Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery," p. 72. In + 1787, Maryland passed an act legalizing manumission. Mr. Dorsey, + of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, December 27th, 1826, speaking + of manumissions under that act, said, that "<em>The progress of emancipation + was astonishing</em>, the State became crowded with a free black + population." + + </p> + <p> + The celebrated William Pinkney, in a speech before the Maryland + House of Delegates, in 1789, on the emancipation of slaves, said, + "Sir, by the eternal principles of natural justice, <em>no master in the + state has a right to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour</em>.... + I would as soon believe the incoherent tale of a schoolboy, who should + tell me he had been frightened by a ghost, as that the grant of this + permission (to emancipate) ought in any degree to alarm us. Are + we apprehensive that these men will become more dangerous by becoming + freemen? Are we alarmed, lest by being admitted into the + enjoyment of civil rights, they will be inspired with a deadly enmity + against the rights of others? Strange, unaccountable paradox! How + much more rational would it be, to argue that the natural enemy of + the privileges of a freeman, is he who is robbed of them himself! Dishonorable + to the species is the idea that they would ever prove injurious + to our interests—released from the shackles of slavery, by the + justice of government and the bounty of individuals—the want of fidelity + and attachment would be next to impossible." + + </p> + <p> + Hon. James Campbell, in an address before the Pennsylvania Society + of the Cincinnati, July 4, 1787, said, "Our separation from + Great Britain has extended the empire of humanity. The time <em>is not + far distant</em> when our sister states, in imitation of our example, + <em>shall turn their vassals into freemen</em>." The Convention that + formed the United States' Constitution being then in session, attended at the + delivery of this oration with General Washington at their head. + + </p> + <p> + A Baltimore paper of September 8th, 1780, contains the following + notice of Major General Gates: "A few days ago passed through + this town the Hon. General Gates and lady. The General, previous + to leaving Virginia, summoned his numerous family of slaves about + him, and amidst their tears of affection and gratitude, gave them their + FREEDOM." + + </p> + <p> + In 1791 the university of William and Mary, in Virginia, conferred + upon Granville Sharpe the degree of Doctor of Laws. Sharpe was + at that time the acknowledged head of British abolitionists. His indefatigable + + exertions, prosecuted for years in the case of Somerset, procured that + memorable decision in the Court of King's Bench, which settled the principle + that no slave could be held in England. He was + most uncompromising in his opposition to slavery, and for twenty + years previous he had spoken, written, and accomplished more against + it than any man living. + + </p> + <p> + In the "Memoirs of the Revolutionary War in the Southern Department," by Gen. + Lee, of Va., Commandant of the Partizan Legion, is the following: "The + Constitution of the United States, adopted lately with so much difficulty, + has effectually provided against this evil, (by importation) after a few + years. It is much to be lamented that having done so much in this way, + <em>a provision had not been made for the gradual abolition of + slavery</em>."—p. 233, 4. + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, Judge of the Supreme Court of that state, + and professor of law in the University of William and Mary, addressed a + letter to the General Assembly of that state, in 1796, urging + the abolition of slavery; from which the following is an extract. + Speaking of the slaves in Virginia, he says: "Should we not, at the + time of the revolution, have loosed their chains and broken their fetters; + or if the difficulties and dangers of such an experiment prohibited the + attempt, during the convulsions of a revolution, is it not + our duty, <em>to embrace the first moment</em> of constitutional health + and vigor to effectuate so desirable an object, and to remove from us a + stigma with which our enemies will never fail to upbraid us, nor + our consciences to reproach us?" + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Faulkner, in a speech before the Virginia Legislature, Jan. + 20, 1832, said—"The idea of a gradual emancipation and removal of + the slaves from this commonwealth, is coeval with the declaration of + our independence from the British yoke. It sprung into existence during + the first session of the General Assembly, subsequent to the formation + of your republican government. When Virginia stood sustained in her + legislation by the pure and philosophic intellect of Pendleton—by the + patriotism of Mason and Lee—by the searching vigor + and sagacity of Wythe, and by the all-embracing, all-comprehensive + genius of Thomas Jefferson! Sir, it was a committee composed of + those five illustrious men, who, in 1777, submitted to the general + assembly of this state, then in session, <em>a plan for the + gradual emancipation of the slaves of this commonwealth</em>." + + </p> + <p> + Hon. Benjamin Watkins Leigh, late United States' senator from + Virginia, in his letters to the people of Virginia, in 1832, signed + Appomattox, p. 43, says: "I thought, till very lately, that it was known + to every body that during the Revolution, <em>and for many years after, + the abolition of slavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest + statesmen</em>, who entertained, with respect, all the schemes which wisdom + or ingenuity could suggest for accomplishing the object. Mr. Wythe, to the + day of his death, <em>was for a simple abolition, considering the objection + to color as founded in prejudice</em>. By degrees, all + + projects of the kind were abandoned. Mr. Jefferson <em>retained</em> his + opinion, and now we have these projects revived." + + </p> + <p> + Governor Barbour, of Virginia, in his speech in the U.S. Senate, + on the Missouri question, Jan. 1820, said:—"We are asked why has + Virginia <em>changed her policy</em> in reference to slavery? That the + sentiments of <em>our most distinguished men</em>, for thirty + years <em>entirely corresponded</em> with the course which the + friends of the restriction (of slavery in Missouri) now advocated; and that + the Virginia delegation, one of whom was the late President of the United + States, voted for the restriction, (of slavery) in the northwestern territory, + and that Mr. Jefferson has delineated a gloomy picture of the baneful effects + of slavery. When it is recollected that the Notes of Mr. Jefferson + were written during the progress of the revolution, it is no matter of + surprise that the writer should have imbibed a large portion of that + enthusiasm which such an occasion was so well calculated to produce. + As to the consent of the Virginia delegation to the restriction in + question, whether the result of a disposition to restrain the slave trade + indirectly, or the influence of that enthusiasm to which I have just + alluded, * * * * it is not now important + to decide. We have witnessed its effects. The liberality of Virginia, or, as + the result may prove, her folly, which submitted to, or, if you will, + PROPOSED <em>this measure</em>, (abolition of slavery in the N.W. + territory) has eventuated in effects which speak a monitory lesson. + <em>How is the representation from this quarter on the present + question?</em>" + + </p> + <p> + Mr. Imlay, in his early history of Kentucky, p. 185, says: "We + have disgraced the fair face of humanity, and trampled upon the sacred + privileges of man, at the very moment that we were exclaiming + against the tyranny of your (the English) ministry. But in contending for + the birthright of freedom, we have learned to feel <em>for the + bondage of others</em>, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of + liberty, we <em>contemplate an emancipation of the slaves of this + country</em>, as honorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us." + + </p> + <p> + In the debate in Congress, Jan, 20, 1806, on Mr. Sloan's motion to + lay a tax on the importation of slaves, Mr. Clark of Va. said: "He + was no advocate for a system of slavery." Mr. Marion, of S. Carolina, said: + "He never had purchased, nor should he ever purchase a slave." Mr. Southard + said: "Not revenue, but an expression of the <em>national sentiment</em> + is the principal object." Mr. Smilie—"I rejoice that the word (slave) + is not in the constitution; its not being there does honor to the worthies + who would not suffer it to become a <em>part</em> of it." Mr. Alston, + of N. Carolina—"In two years we shall have the power to prohibit the + trade altogether. Then this House will be UNANIMOUS. No one will object to + our exercising our full constitutional powers." National Intelligencer, + Jan. 24, 1806. + + </p> + <p> + These witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit; nor their + testimony comments to make it intelligible—their <em>names</em> are + their <em>endorsers</em> and their strong words their own + interpreters. We wave all comments. + + Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to <em>hear</em>, let + him HEAR. And whosoever will not hear the fathers of the revolution, + the founders of the government, its chief magistrates, judges, legislators + and sages, who dared and periled all under the burdens, and + in the heat of the day that tried men's souls—then "neither will he + be persuaded though THEY rose from the dead." + + </p> + <p> + Some of the points established by the testimony are—The universal + expectation that the <em>moral</em> influence of Congress, of state + legislatures, of seminaries of learning, of churches, of the ministers of + religion, and of public sentiment widely embodied in abolition societies, + would be exerted against slavery, calling forth by argument and appeal + the moral sense of the nation, and creating a power of opinion + that would abolish the system throughout the union. In a word, that + free speech and a free press would be wielded against slavery without + ceasing and without restriction. Full well did the south know, not + only that the national government would probably legislate against + slavery wherever the constitution placed it within its reach, but she + knew also that Congress had already marked out the line of national + policy to be pursued on the subject—had committed itself before the + world to a course of action against slavery, wherever she could move + upon it without encountering a conflicting jurisdiction—that the nation + had established by solemn ordinance memorable precedent for + subsequent action, by abolishing slavery in the northwest territory, + and by declaring that it should never thenceforward exist there; and this + too, as soon as by cession of Virginia and other states, the territory came + under Congressional control. The south knew also that the sixth article + in the ordinance prohibiting slavery was first proposed by the largest + slaveholding state in the confederacy—that the chairman of the committee + that reported the ordinance was a slaveholder—that the ordinance + was enacted by Congress during the session of the convention + that formed the United States Constitution—that the provisions of the + ordinance were, both while in prospect, and when under discussion, + matters of universal notoriety and <em>approval</em> with all parties, and + when finally passed, received the vote <em>of every member of Congress from + each of the slaveholding states</em>. The south also had every reason for + believing that the first Congress under the constitution would + <em>ratify</em> that ordinance—as it <em>did</em> unanimously. + + </p> + <p> + A crowd of reflections, suggested by the preceding testimony, + press for utterance. The right of petition ravished and trampled by + its constitutional guardians, and insult and defiance hurled in the faces of + the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE while calmly remonstrating <em>with their</em> + SERVANTS for violence committed on the nation's charter and their own dearest + rights! Add to this "the right of peaceably assembling" violently + wrested—the rights of minorities, <em>rights</em> no + longer—free speech struck dumb—free <em>men</em> outlawed and + murdered—free presses cast into the streets and their fragments strewed + with shoutings, or flourished in triumph before the gaze of approving crowds + as proud members of prostrate law! + + </p> + <p> + The spirit and power of our fathers, where are they? Their deep + homage always and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with its + <em>inseparable signs—free speech and a free press</em>—their + reverence for justice, liberty, <em>rights</em> and all-pervading law, + where are they? + + </p> + <p> + But we turn from these considerations—though the times on which + we have fallen, and those towards which we are borne with headlong + haste, call for their discussion as with the voices of departing + life—and proceed to topics relevant to the argument before us. + + </p> + <p> + The seventh article of the amendments to the constitution is + alleged to withhold from Congress the power to abolish slavery in the + District. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, + without due process of law." All the slaves in the District have been + "deprived of liberty" by legislative acts. Now, these legislative acts + "depriving" them "of liberty," were either "due process of law," + or they were <em>not</em>. If they <em>were</em>, then a legislative + act, taking from the master that "property" which is the identical "liberty" + previously taken from the slave, would be "due process of law" + <em>also</em>, and of course a <em>constitutional</em> act; but if + the legislative acts "depriving" them of "liberty" were <em>not</em> + "due process of law," then the slaves were deprived of liberty + <em>unconstitutionally</em>, and these acts are <em>void</em>. + In that case the <em>constitution emancipates them</em>. + + </p> + <p> + If the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase + "due process of law," is <em>judicial</em> process solely, it is granted, + and that fact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District <em>has</em> + been deprived of his liberty by "a judicial process," or, in other words, by + "due process of law;" consequently, upon the objector's own admission, + every slave in the District has been deprived of liberty + <em>unconstitutionally</em>, and is therefore <em>free by the + constitution</em>. This is asserted only of the slaves under the "exclusive + legislation" of Congress. + + </p> + <p> + The last clause of the article under consideration is quoted for the + same purpose: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use + without just compensation." Each of the state constitutions has a + clause of similar purport. The abolition of slavery in the District by + Congress, would not, as we shall presently show, violate this clause + either directly or by implication. Granting for argument's sake, that + slaves are "private property," and that to emancipate them, would + be to "take private property" for "public use," the objector admits + the power of Congress to do <em>this</em>, provided it will do something + <em>else</em>, that is, <em>pay</em> for them. Thus, instead of + denying the <em>power</em>, the objector not only admits, but + <em>affirms</em> it, as the ground of the inference that + compensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence + of <em>one</em> power, the objector asserts the existence of + <em>two</em>—one, the power to take the slaves from their masters, + the other, the power to take the property of the United States to pay for + them. + + </p> + <p> + If Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private + property, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally, + <em>legalise</em> the perpetration of such acts, by <em>others</em>, + nor <em>protect</em> those who commit them. Does the power to rob a man + of his earnings, rob the + + earner of his right to them? Who has a better right to the + <em>product</em> than the producer?—to the <em>interest</em>, + than the owner of the <em>principal</em>?—to the hands and arms, + than he from whose shoulders they swing?—to the body and soul, than he + whose they <em>are</em>? Congress not only impairs but annihilates the + right of private property, while it withholds from the slaves of the District + their title to <em>themselves</em>. What! Congress powerless to protect + a man's right to <em>himself</em>, when it can make inviolable the right + to a <em>dog</em>! But, waving this, I deny that the abolition + of slavery in the District would violate this clause. What does + the clause prohibit? The "taking" of "private property" for "public + use." Suppose Congress should emancipate the slaves in the District, + what would it "<em>take</em>?" Nothing. What would it <em>hold</em>? + Nothing. What would it put to "public use?" Nothing. Instead of + <em>taking</em> "private property," Congress, by abolishing slavery, would + say "<em>private property</em> shall not <em>be</em> taken; and those + who have been robbed of it already, shall be kept out of it no longer; and + since every man's right to his own body is <em>paramount</em>, he shall + be protected in it." True, Congress may not arbitrarily take property, + <em>as</em> property, from one man and give it to another—and in + the abolition of slavery no such thing is done. A legislative act changes the + <em>condition</em> of the slave—makes him his own + <em>proprietor</em> instead of the property of another. It determines a + question of <em>original right</em> between two classes of + persons—doing an act of justice to one, and restraining the other from + acts of injustice; or, in other words, preventing one from robbing the other, + by granting to the injured party the protection of just and equitable laws. + + </p> + <p> + Congress, by an act of abolition, would change the condition of + seven thousand "persons" in the District, but would "take" nothing. + To construe this provision so as to enable the citizens of the District + to hold as property, and in perpetuity, whatever they please, or to + hold it as property in all circumstances—all necessity, public welfare, + and the will and power of the government to the contrary + notwithstanding—is a total perversion of its whole + <em>intent</em>. The <em>design</em> of the provision, was to throw + up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right to "take property" + for <em>State uses</em> is one thing;—the right so to adjust the + <em>tenures</em> by which property is held, that <em>each may have his + own secured to him</em>, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of + legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the District, + it would be <em>adopting</em>, not abolishing slavery—becoming a + slaveholder itself, instead of requiring others to be such no longer. The + clause in question, prohibits the "taking" of individual property for public + uses, to be employed or disposed of as property for governmental purposes. + Congress, by abolishing slavery in the District, would do no such thing. It + would merely change the <em>condition</em> of that which has been + recognised as a qualified property by congressional acts, though previously + declared "persons" by the constitution. More than this is done continually by + Congress and every other Legislature. Property the most absolute and + unqualified, + + is annihilated by legislative acts. The embargo and non-intercourse + act, prostrated at a stroke, a forest of shipping, and sunk millions + of capital. To say nothing of the power of Congress to take + hundreds of millions from the people by direct taxation, who doubts + its power to abolish at once the whole tariff system, change the seat + of Government, arrest the progress of national works, prohibit any + branch of commerce with the Indian tribes or with foreign nations, + change the locality of forts, arsenals, magazines, dock yards, &c., to + abolish the Post Office system, the privilege of patents and copyrights, + &c. By such acts Congress might, in the exercise of its acknowledged + powers, annihilate property to an incalculable amount, and + that without becoming liable to claims for compensation. + + </p> + <p> + Finally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of + "<em>property</em>." The constitution of the United States does not + recognise slaves as "PROPERTY" any where, and it does not recognise them in + <em>any sense</em> in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in + the constitution recognise them as "persons." Every reference to them + points <em>solely</em> to the element of <em>personality</em>; and + thus, by the strongest implication, declares that the constitution + <em>knows</em> them only as "persons," and <em>will</em> not + recognise them in any other light. If they escape into + free States, the constitution authorizes their being taken back. But + how? Not as the property of an "owner," but as "persons;" and + the peculiarity of the expression is a marked recognition of their + <em>personality</em>—a refusal to recognise them as + chattels—"persons <em>held</em> to service." Are <em>oxen</em> + "<em>held</em> to service?" That can be affirmed only of + <em>persons</em>. Again, slaves give political power as "persons." The + constitution, in settling the principle of representation, requires their + enumeration in the census. How? As property? Then why not + include race horses and game cocks? Slaves, like other inhabitants, + are enumerated as "persons." So by the constitution, the government + was pledged to non-interference with "the migration or importation + of such persons" as the States might think proper to admit until 1808, + and authorized the laying of a tax on each "person" so admitted. + Further, slaves are recognised as <em>persons</em> by the exaction of + their <em>allegiance</em> to the government. For offences against the + government slaves are tried as <em>persons</em>; as persons they are + entitled to counsel for their defence, to the rules of evidence, and to + "due process of law," and as <em>persons</em> they are punished. True, + they are loaded with cruel disabilities in courts of law, such as greatly + obstruct and often inevitably defeat the ends of justice, yet they are still + recognised as <em>persons</em>. Even in the legislation of Congress, and + in the diplomacy of the general government, notwithstanding the frequent and + wide departures from the integrity of the constitution on this subject, slaves + are not recognised as <em>property</em> without qualification. Congress + has always refused to grant compensation for slaves killed or taken by the + enemy, even when these slaves had been impressed into the United + States' service. In half a score of cases since the last war, Congress + has rejected such applications for compensation. Besides, both in + + Congressional acts, and in our national diplomacy, slaves and property + are not used as convertible terms. When mentioned in treaties and + state papers it is in such a way as to distinguish them from mere property, + and generally by a recognition of their <em>personality</em>. In the + invariable recognition of slaves as <em>persons</em>, the United States' + constitution caught the mantle of the glorious Declaration, and most worthily + wears it.—It recognizes all human beings as "men," "persons," and + thus as "equals." In the original draft of the Declaration, as it + came from the hand of Jefferson, it is alleged that Great Britain had + "waged a cruel war against <em>human</em> nature itself, violating its + most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people, + carrying them into slavery, * * determined to keep up a market where + MEN should be bought and sold,"—thus disdaining to make the charter + of freedom a warrant for the arrest of <em>men</em>, that they might be + shorn both of liberty and humanity. + + </p> + <p> + The celebrated Roger Sherman, one of the committee of five appointed + to draft the Declaration of Independence, and also a member of the + convention that formed the United States' constitution, said, in the first + Congress after its adoption: "The constitution <em>does not consider these + persons,</em> (slaves,) <em>as a species of + property.</em>"—[Lloyd's Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 313.] That the United + States' Constitution does not make slaves "property," is shown in the fact + that no person, either as a citizen of the United States, or by having his + domicile within the United States' government, can hold slaves. He can hold + them only by deriving his power from <em>state</em> laws, or from the + laws of Congress, if he hold slaves within the District. But no person + resident within the United States' jurisdiction, and not within the District, + nor within a state whose laws support slavery, nor "held to service" under the + laws of such state or district, having escaped therefrom, <em>can be held + as a slave</em>. + + </p> + <p> + Men can hold <em>property</em> under the United States' government though + residing beyond the bounds of any state, district, or territory. An inhabitant + of the Wisconsin Territory can hold property there under the + laws of the United States, but he cannot hold <em>slaves</em> there under + the United States' laws, nor by virtue of the United States' Constitution, + nor upon the ground of his United States citizenship, nor by having + his domicile within the United States' jurisdiction. The constitution + no where recognizes the right to "slave property," <em>but merely the fact + that the states have jurisdiction each in its own limits, and that there + are certain "persons" within their jurisdictions "held to service" by + their own laws.</em></p> + <p> + Finally, in the clause under consideration, "private property" + is not to be taken "without <em>just</em> compensation." "JUST!" If + justice is to be appealed to in determining the amount of compensation, + let her determine the <em>grounds</em> also. If it be her province to say + <em>how much</em> compensation is "just," it is hers to say whether + <em>any</em> is "just,"—whether the slave is "just" property + <em>at all</em>, rather than a "<em>person</em>." Then, if justice + adjudges the slave to be "private property," + + it adjudges him to be <em>his own</em> property, since the right to one's + <em>self</em> is the first right—the source of all others—the + original stock by which they are accumulated—the principal, of which + they are the interest. And since the slave's "private property" has been + "taken," and since "compensation" is impossible—there being no + <em>equivalent</em> for one's self—the least that can be done is to + restore to him his original private property. + + </p> + <p> + Having shown that in abolishing slavery, "property" would not + be "taken for public use," it may be added that, in those states where + slavery has been abolished by law, no claim for compensation has + been allowed. Indeed the manifest absurdity of demanding it, seems + to have quite forstalled the <em>setting up</em> of such a claim. + + </p> + <p> + The abolition of slavery in the District, instead of being a legislative + anomaly, would proceed upon the principles of every day legislation. + It has been shown already, that the United States' Constitution + does not recognize slaves as "property." Yet ordinary legislation is + full of precedents, showing that even <i>absolute</i> + property is in many respects wholly subject to legislation. The repeal of the + law of entailments—all those acts that control the alienation of + property, its disposal by will, its passing to heirs by descent, with the + question, who shall be heirs, and what shall be the rule of distribution among + them, or whether property shall be transmitted at all by descent, rather than + escheat to the state—these, with statutes of limitation, and various + other classes of legislative acts, serve to illustrate the acknowledged + scope of the law-making power, even where property <em>is in every sense + absolute</em>. Persons whose property is thus affected by public laws, + receive from the government no compensation for their losses, unless + the state has been put in possession of the property taken from + them. + + </p> + <p> + The preamble of the United States' Constitution declares it to be + a fundamental object of the organization of the government "to ESTABLISH + JUSTICE." Has Congress <em>no power</em> to do that for which + it was made the <em>depository of power</em>? CANNOT the United States' + Government fulfil the purpose <em>for which it was brought into + being</em>? + + </p> + <p> + To abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; + but to "<em>establish justice</em>" between two parties. To emancipate the + slave, is to "<em>establish justice</em>" between him and + his master—to throw around the person, character, conscience, liberty, + and domestic relations of the one, <em>the same law</em> that secures and + blesses the other. In other words, to prevent by <em>legal restraints</em> + one class of men from seizing upon another class, and robbing them at pleasure + of their earnings, their time, their liberty, their kindred, and the very use + and ownership of their own persons. Finally, to abolish slavery is to proclaim + and <em>enact</em> that innocence and helplessness—now <em>free + plunder</em>—are entitled to <em>legal protection</em>; and that + power, avarice, and lust, shall no longer gorge upon their spoils under the + license, and by the ministrations of <em>law</em>! Congress, by possessing + "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," has a <em>general + protective power</em> for ALL the inhabitants + + of the District. If it has no power to protect <em>one</em> man, it has + none to protect another—none to protect <em>any</em>—and if + it <em>can</em> protect <em>one</em> man and is <em>bound</em> + to protect him, it <em>can</em> protect <em>every</em> man—all + men—and is <em>bound</em> to do it. All admit the power of Congress + to protect the masters in the District against their slaves. What part of the + constitution gives the power? The clause so often quoted,—"power of + legislation in all cases whatsoever," equally in the "<em>case</em>" of + defending the blacks against the whites, as in that of defending the whites + against the blacks. The power is given also by Art. 1, Sec. 8, + clause 15—"Congress shall have power to suppress insurrections"—a + power to protect, as well blacks against whites, as whites against blacks. If + the constitution gives power to protect <em>one</em> class against the + other, it gives power to protect <em>either</em> against the other. + Suppose the blacks in the District should seize the whites, drive them into + the fields and kitchens, force them to work without pay, flog them, imprison + them, and sell them at their pleasure, where would Congress find power to + restrain such acts? Answer; a <em>general</em> power in the clause so + often cited, and an <em>express</em> one in that cited + above—"Congress shall have power to suppress insurrections." So much + for a <em>supposed</em> case. Here follows a <em>real</em> one. The + whites in the District <em>are perpetrating these identical acts</em> upon + seven thousand blacks daily. That Congress has power to restrain these acts + in <em>one</em> case, all assert, and in so doing they assert the power + "in <em>all</em> cases whatsoever." For the grant of power to suppress + insurrections, is an <em>unconditional</em> grant, not hampered by + provisos as to the color, shape, size, sex, language, creed, or condition of + the insurgents. Congress derives its power to suppress this + <em>actual</em> insurrection, from the same source whence it derived its + power to suppress the <em>same</em> acts in the case + <em>supposed</em>. If one case is an insurrection, the other is. The + <em>acts</em> in both are the same; the <em>actors</em> only are + different. In the one case, ignorant and degraded—goaded by the memory + of the past, stung by the + present, and driven to desperation by the fearful looking for of wrongs + for ever to come. In the other, enlightened into the nature of + <em>rights</em>, the principles of justice, and the dictates of the law + of love, unprovoked by wrongs, with cool deliberation, and by system, they + perpetrate these acts upon those to whom they owe unnumbered obligations for + <em>whole lives</em> of unrequited service. On which side may palliation + be pleaded, and which party may most reasonably claim an abatement of + the rigors of law? If Congress has power to suppress such acts + <em>at all</em>, it has power to suppress them <em>in</em> all. + + </p> + <p> + It has been shown already that <i>allegiance</i> is + exacted of the slave. Is the government of the United States unable to grant + <em>protection</em> where it exacts <em>allegiance</em>? It is an + axiom of the civilized world, and a maxim even with savages, that allegiance + and protection are reciprocal and correlative. Are principles powerless with + us which exact homage of barbarians? <em>Protection is the</em> + CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT <em>of every human being under the exclusive + legislation of Congress who has not forfeited it by crime.</em></p> + <p> + In conclusion, I argue the power of Congress to abolish slavery + in the District, from Art. 1, sec, 8, clause 1, of the constitution; + "Congress shall have power to provide for the common defence and + the general welfare of the United States." Has the government of + the United States no power under this grant, to legislate within its + own exclusive jurisdiction on subjects that vitally affect its interests? + Suppose the slaves in the district should rise upon their masters, and + the United States' government, in quelling the insurrection, should + kill any number of them. Could their masters claim compensation of + the government? Manifestly not; even though no proof existed that + the particular slaves killed were insurgents. This was precisely the + point at issue between those masters, whose slaves were killed by the + State troops at the time of the Southampton insurrection, and the Virginia + Legislature: no evidence was brought to show that the slaves + killed by the troops were insurgents; yet the Virginia Legislature + decided that their masters were <em>not entitled to compensation</em>. + They proceeded on the sound principle, that a government may in + self-protection destroy the claim of its subjects even to that which has + been recognized as property by its own acts. If in providing for the + common defence, the United States' government, in the case supposed, + would have power to destroy slaves both as <em>property</em> and + <em>persons</em>, it surely might stop <em>half-way</em>, destroy + them <em>as property</em> while it legalized their existence as + <em>persons</em>, and thus provided for the common defence + by giving them a personal and powerful interest in the government, + and securing their strength for its defence. + + </p> + <p> + Like other Legislatures, Congress has power to abate nuisances—to + remove or tear down unsafe buildings—to destroy infected + cargoes—to lay injunctions upon manufactories injurious to the public + health—and thus to "provide for the common defence and general welfare" + by destroying individual property, when such property puts in jeopardy + the public weal. + + </p> + <p> + Granting, for argument's sake, that slaves are "property" in the + District of Columbia—if Congress has a right to annihilate property + in the District when the public safety requires it, it may surely annihilate + its existence <em>as</em> property when the public safety requires it, + especially if it transform into a <em>protection</em> and + <em>defence</em> that which as <em>property</em> perilled the public + interests. In the District of Columbia there are, besides the United States' + Capitol, the President's house, the national offices, &c. of the + Departments of State, Treasury, War, and Navy, the General Post-office, and + Patent Office. It is also the residence of the President, all the highest + officers of the government, both houses of Congress, and all the foreign + ambassadors. In this same District there are also <em>seven thousand + slaves</em>. Jefferson, in his Notes on Va. p. 241, says of slavery, that + "the State permitting one half of its citizens to trample on the rights of + the other, <em>transforms them into enemies</em>;" and Richard Henry Lee, + in the Va. house of Burgesses in 1758, declared that to those who held them, + "<em>slaves must be natural enemies</em>." Is Congress so + <em>impotent</em> that it <em>cannot</em> + exercise that right pronounced both by municipal and national law, + the most sacred and universal—the right of self-preservation and + defence? Is it shut up to the <em>necessity</em> of keeping seven thousand + "enemies" in the heart of the nation's citadel? Does the iron fiat of + the constitution doom it to such imbecility that it <em>cannot</em> arrest + the process that <em>made</em> them "enemies," and still goads to deadlier + hate by fiery trials, and day by day adds others to their number? Is + <em>this</em> providing for the common defence and general welfare? If to + rob men of rights excites their hate, freely to restore them and make + amends, will win their love. + + </p> + <p> + By emancipating the slaves in the District, the government of the + United States would disband an army of "enemies," and enlist "for + the common defence and general welfare," a body guard of <em>friends</em> + seven thousand strong. In the last year, a handful of British soldiers + sacked Washington city, burned the capitol, the President's house, + and the national offices and archives; and no marvel, for thousands + of the inhabitants of the District had been "TRANSFORMED INTO ENEMIES." + Would <em>they</em> beat back invasion? If the national government + had exercised its constitutional "power to provide for the common + defence and to promote the general welfare," by turning those "enemies" + into friends, then, instead of a hostile ambush lurking in every + thicket inviting assault, and secret foes in every house paralyzing + defence, an army of allies would have rallied in the hour of her calamity, + and shouted defiance from their munitions of rocks; whilst the + banner of the republic, then trampled in dust, would have floated securely + over FREEMEN exulting amidst bulwarks of strength. + + </p> + <p> + To show that Congress can abolish slavery in the District, under + the grant of power "to provide for the common defence and to promote + the general welfare," I quote an extract from a speech of Mr. + Madison, of Va., in the first Congress under the constitution, May 13, + 1789. Speaking of the abolition of the slave trade, Mr. Madison + says: "I should venture to say it is as much for the interests of + Georgia and South Carolina, as of any state in the union. Every + addition they receive to their number of slaves tends to <em>weaken</em> + them, and renders them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities + with foreign nations, they will be the means of <em>inviting</em> attack + instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the general + government to protect every part of the empire against danger, as well + <em>internal</em> as external. <em>Every thing, therefore, which tends + to increase this danger, though it may be a local affair, yet if it involves + national expense or safety, it becomes of concern to every part of the union, + and is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged with + the general administration of the government.</em>" See Cong. Reg. vol. 1, + p. 310, 11. + + </p> + </div> + <div class="teidiv"> + <h3><a name="E5wA_PS"></a> + POSTSCRIPT + + </h3> + <p> + My apology for adding a <i>postscript</i>, to a + discussion already perhaps too protracted, is the fact that the preceding + sheets were in the hands of the printer, and all but the concluding pages had + gone through the press, before the passage of Mr. Calhoun's late resolutions + in the Senate of the United States. A proceeding so extraordinary,—if + indeed the time has not passed when <em>any</em> acts of Congress in + derogation of freedom and in deference to slavery, can be deemed + extraordinary,—should not be suffered to pass in silence at such + a crisis as the present; especially as the passage of one of the resolutions + by a vote of 36 to 9, exhibits a shift of position on the part of the South, + as sudden as it is unaccountable, being nothing less than the surrender of + a fortress which until then they had defended with the pertinacity of a + blind and almost infuriated fatuity. Upon the discussions during the pendency + of the resolutions, and upon the vote, by which they were carried, I + make no comment, save only to record my exultation in the fact there + exhibited, that great emergencies are <em>true touchstones</em>, and that + henceforward, until this question is settled, whoever holds a seat in Congress + will find upon, and all around him, a pressure strong enough to TEST + him—a focal blaze that will find its way through the carefully adjusted + cloak of fair pretension, and the sevenfold brass of two-faced political + intrigue, and <em>no</em>-faced <em>non-committalism</em>, piercing + to the dividing asunder of joints and marrow. Be it known to every northern + man who aspires to a seat in Congress, that hereafter it is the destiny of + congressional action on this subject, to be a MIGHTY REVELATOR—making + secret thoughts public property, and proclaiming on the house-tops what is + whispered in the ear—smiting off masks, and bursting open sepulchres + beautiful outwardly, and heaving up to the sun their dead men's bones. To + such we say,—<em>Remember the Missouri Question, and the fate of those + who then sold the North, and their own birthright</em>! + + </p> + <p> + Passing by the resolutions generally without remark—the attention of + the reader is specially solicited to Mr. Clay's substitute for Mr. Calhoun's + fifth resolution. + + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + "Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the states + of Virginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic slavery existed in + both of these states, including the ceded territory, and that, as it still + continues in both of them, it could not be abolished within the District + without a violation of that good faith, which was implied in the cession and + in the acceptance of the territory; nor, unless compensation were made to the + proprietors of slaves, without a manifest infringement of an amendment to the + constitution of the United States; nor without exciting a degree of just + alarm and apprehension in the states recognizing slavery, far transcending + in mischievous tendency, any possible benefit which could be accomplished + by the abolition." + + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + By voting for this resolution, the south, by a simultaneous movement, + shifted its mode of defense, not so much by taking a position entirely new, + as by attempting to refortify an old one—never much trusted in, and + abandoned mainly long ago, as being unable to hold out against assault however + + unskilfully directed. In the debate on this resolution, though the southern + members of Congress did not <em>professedly</em> retreat from the ground + hitherto maintained by them—that Congress has no power by the + constitution to abolish slavery in the District—yet in the main they + silently drew off from it. + + </p> + <p> + The passage of this resolution—with the vote of every southern senator, + forms a new era in the discussion of this question. + + </p> + <p> + We cannot join in the lamentations of those who bewail it. We hail it, + and rejoice in it. It was as we would have had it—offered by a southern + senator, advocated by southern senators, and on the ground that it "was no + compromise"—that it embodied the true southern principle—that + "this resolution stood on as high ground as Mr. Calhoun's"—(Mr. + Preston)—"that Mr. Clay's resolution was as strong as Mr. + Calhoun's"—(Mr. Rives)—that "the resolution he (Mr. Calhoun) now + refused to support, was as strong as his own, and that in supporting it, there + was no abandonment of principle by the south."—(Mr. Walker, + of Mi.)—further, that it was advocated by the southern senators + generally as an expression of their views, and as setting the question of + slavery in the District on its <em>true</em> ground—that + finally when the question was taken, every slaveholding senator, including + Mr. Calhoun himself, voted for the resolution. + + </p> + <p> + By passing this resolution, and with such avowals, the south has surrendered + irrevocably the whole question at issue between them and the + petitioners for abolition in the District. It has, unwittingly but explicitly, + conceded the main question argued in the preceding pages. + + </p> + <p> + The <em>only</em> ground taken against the right of Congress to abolish + slavery in the District is, that it existed in Maryland and Virginia when the + cession was made, and "<em>as it still continues in both of them</em>, it + could not be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was + implied in the cession." &c. The <em>sole argument</em> is + <em>not</em> that exclusive <em>sovereignty</em> has no + power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction, <em>nor</em> that the + powers of even <em>ordinary legislation</em> cannot do + it,—<em>nor</em> that the clause granting Congress "exclusive + legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District," gives no power to do + it; but that the <em>unexpressed expectation</em> of one of the parties + that the other would not "in <em>all</em> cases" <em>use</em> the + power which said party had consented <em>might be used</em> "<em>in all + cases</em>," <em>prohibits</em> the use of it. The only cardinal point + in the discussion, is here not only <em>yielded</em>, but formally laid + down by the South as the leading article in their creed on the question of + Congressional jurisdiction over slavery in the District. The <em>sole + reason</em> given why Congress should not abolish, and the sole evidence + that if it did, such abolition would be a violation of "good faith," is that + "<em>slavery still continues in those states</em>,"—thus explicitly + admitting, that if slavery did <em>not</em> "still continue" in those + States, Congress <em>could</em> abolish it in the District. The same + admission is made also in the <em>premises</em>, which state that slavery + existed in those states <em>at the time of the cession</em>, &c. + Admitting that if it had <em>not</em> existed there then, but had grown + up in the District under <em>United States' laws</em>, Congress might + constitutionally abolish it. Or that if the ceded parts of those states had + been the <em>only</em> parts in which slaves were held under + their laws, Congress might have abolished in such a contingency also. The + cession in that case leaving no slaves in those states,—no "good faith," + would be "implied" in it, nor any "violated," by an act of abolition. The + principle of the resolution makes this further admission, that if Maryland + and Virginia should at once abolish their slavery, Congress might at once + abolish it in the District. The principle goes even further than this, and + <em>requires</em> Congress in such case to abolish slavery in the + District "by the <em>good faith implied</em> in the cession and acceptance + of the territory." Since, + + according to the spirit and scope of the resolution, this "implied good faith" + of Maryland and Virginia in making the cession, was that Congress would + do nothing within the District which should go to counteract the policy, or + bring into disrepute the "institutions," or call in question the usages, or + even in any way ruffle the prejudices of those states, or do what + <em>they</em> might think would unfavorably bear upon their interests; + <em>themselves</em> of course being the judges. + + </p> + <p> + But let us dissect another limb of the resolution. What is to be understood + by "that good faith which was IMPLIED?" It is of course an admission that + such a condition was not <em>expressed</em> in the acts of + cession—that in their <em>terms</em> there is nothing restricting + the power of Congress on the subject of slavery in the District—not a + word alluding to it, nor one inserted with such an <em>intent</em>. + This "implied faith," then, rests on no clause or word in the United States' + Constitution, or in the acts of cession, or in the acts of Congress accepting + the cession, nor does it rest on any declarations of the legislatures of + Maryland and Virginia made at the time, or in that generation, nor on any + <em>act</em> of theirs, nor on any declaration of the people of those + states, nor on the testimony of the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Madisons, Chaces, + Martins, and Jennifers, of those states and times. The assertion rests + <em>on itself alone</em>! Mr. Clay and the other senators who voted for + the resolution, <em>guess</em> that Maryland and Virginia supposed that + Congress would by no means <em>use</em> the power given them by the + constitution, except in such ways as would be well pleasing in the eyes of + those states; especially as one of them was the "Ancient Dominion!" And now + after the lapse of half a century, this <em>assumed expectation</em> + of Maryland and Virginia, the existence of which is mere matter of conjecture + with the 36 senators, is conjured up and duly installed upon the + judgment-seat of final appeal, before whose nod constitutions are to flee + away, and with whom, solemn grants of power and explicit guaranties are, + when weighed in the balance, altogether lighter than vanity! + + </p> + <p> + But let us survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia + leave so much to be "<em>implied</em>?" Why did they not in some way + express what lay so near their hearts? Had their vocabulary run so low + that a single word could not be eked out for the occasion? Or were + those states so bashful of a sudden that they dare not speak out and + tell what they wanted? Or did they take it for granted that Congress + would always act in the premises according to their wishes, and that too, + without their <em>making known</em> their wishes? If, as honorable + senators tell us, Maryland and Virginia did verily travail with such + abounding <em>faith</em>, why brought they forth no <em>works</em>? + + </p> + <p> + It is as true in <em>legislation</em> as in religion, that the only + <em>evidence</em> of "faith" is <em>works</em>, and that "faith" + <em>without</em> works is <em>dead</em>, i.e. has no + <em>power</em>. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing + <em>expressed</em>, an "implied" <em>faith</em> without works, is + <em>omnipotent</em>. Mr. Clay is lawyer enough to know that even a + <em>senatorial hypothesis</em> as to what must have been the + <em>understanding</em> of Maryland and Virginia about congressional + exercise of constitutional power, <em>abrogates no grant</em>, and that + to plead it in a court of law, would be of small service except to jostle + "their Honors'" gravity! He need not be told that the constitution gives + Congress "power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over + such District." Nor that the legislatures of Maryland and Virginia constructed + their acts of cession with this clause <em>before their eyes</em>, and + that both of them declared those acts made "in <em>pursuance</em>" of said + clause. Those states were aware that the United States in their constitution + had left nothing to be "<em>implied</em>" as to the power + of Congress over the District;—an admonition quite sufficient one would + + think to put them on their guard, and induce them to eschew vague implications + and resort to <i>stipulations</i>. Full well did they + know also that those were times when, in matters of high import, + <em>nothing</em> was left to be "implied." The colonies were then panting + from a twenty years' conflict with the mother country, about bills of rights, + charters, treaties, constitutions, grants, limitations, and + <em>acts of cession</em>. The severities of a long and terrible discipline + had taught them to guard at all points <i>legislative + grants</i>, that their exact import and limit might be + self-evident—leaving no scope for a blind "faith," that + <em>somehow</em> in the lottery of chances there would be no blanks, + but making all sure by the use of explicit terms, and wisely chosen words, + and <em>just enough</em> of them. The Constitution of the United States + with its amendments, those of the individual states, the national treaties, + the public documents of the general and state governments at that period, show + the universal conviction of legislative bodies, that when great public + interest were at stake, nothing should be left to be "implied." + + </p> + <p> + Further: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their "implied + faith" in <em>words</em>, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a + proviso, declaring that Congress should not "exercise exclusive legislation + in <em>all</em> cases whatsoever over the District," but that the "case" + of <em>slavery</em> should be an exception: who does not know that + Congress, if it had accepted the cession on those terms, would have violated + the Constitution; and who that has ever studied the free mood of those times + in its bearings on slavery—proofs of which are given in scores on the + preceding pages—can for an instant believe that the people of the United + States would have altered their Constitution for the purpose of providing for + slavery an inviolable sanctuary; that when driven in from its outposts, and + everywhere retreating discomfited before the march of freedom, it might be + received into everlasting habitations on the common homestead and hearth-stone + of this free republic? Besides, who can believe that Virginia made such a + condition, or cherished such a purpose, when at that very moment, Washington, + Jefferson, Wythe, Patrick Henry, St. George Tucker, and almost all her + illustrious men, were advocating the abolition of slavery by law. When + Washington had said, two years before, Maryland and Virginia "must have laws + for the gradual abolition of slavery and at a period <em>not remote</em>;" + and when Jefferson in his letter to Price, three years before the cession, + had said, speaking of Virginia, "This is the next state to which we may turn + our eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice + and oppression—a conflict in which THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING DAILY + RECRUITS;" when voluntary emancipations on the soil were then progressing at + the rate of between one and two thousand annually, (See Judge Tucker's + "Dissertation on Slavery," p. 73;) when the public sentiment of Virginia had + undergone, and was undergoing so mighty a revolution that the idea of the + continuance of slavery as a permanent system could not be + <em>tolerated</em>, though she then contained about half the slaves + in the Union. Was this the time to stipulated for the <em>perpetuity</em> + of slavery under the exclusive legislation of Congress? and that too at the + <em>same</em> session of Congress when <em>every one</em> of her + delegation voted for the abolition of slavery in the North West Territory; a + territory which she had herself ceded to Congress, and along with it had + surrendered her jurisdiction over many of her + citizens, inhabitants of that territory, who held slaves there—and whose + slaves were emancipated by that act of Congress, in which all her delegation + with one accord participated? + + </p> + <p> + Now in view of the universal belief then prevalent, that slavery in this + country was doomed to short life, and especially that in Maryland and Virginia + it would be <em>speedily</em> abolished—are we to be told that + those states <em>designed</em> + to bind Congress <em>never</em> to terminate it? Are we to adopt the + monstrous conclusion that this was the intent of the Ancient + Dominion—thus to <em>bind</em> the United States by an "implied + faith," and that when the United States <em>accepted</em> the cession, + she did solemnly thus plight her troth, and that Virginia did then so + <em>understand</em> it? Verily one would think that honorable + senators supposed themselves deputed to do our <em>thinking</em> as well + as our legislation, or rather, that they themselves were absolved from such + drudgery by virtue of their office! + + </p> + <p> + Another absurdity of this dogma about "implied faith" is, that where + there was no power to exact an <em>express</em> pledge, there was none to + demand an <em>implied</em> one, and where there was no power to + <em>give</em> the one, there was none to give the <em>other</em>. We + have shown already that Congress could not have accepted the cession with + such a condition. To have signed away a part of its constitutional grant of + power would have been a <em>breach</em> of the Constitution. Further, the + Congress which accepted the cession was competent to pass a resolution + pledging itself not to <em>use all</em> the power over the District + committed to it by the Constitution. But here its power ended. Its resolution + would only bind <em>itself</em>. Could it bind the <em>next</em> + Congress by its authority? Could the members of one Congress say to the + members of another, because we do not choose to exercise all the authority + vested in us by the Constitution, therefore you <em>shall</em> not? This + would have been a prohibition to do what the Constitution gives power to do. + Each successive Congress would still have gone to the Constitution for its + power, brushing away in its course the cobwebs stretched across its path by + the officiousness of an impertinent predecessor. Again, the legislatures of + Virginia and Maryland, had no power to bind Congress, either by an express or + an implied pledge, never to abolish slavery in the District. Those + legislatures had no power to bind <em>themselves</em> never to abolish + slavery within their own territories—the ceded parts included. Where + then would they get power to bind <em>another</em> not to do what they + had no power to bind themselves not to do? If a legislature could not in this + respect control the successive legislatures of its own State, could it + control the successive Congresses of the United States? + + </p> + <p> + But perhaps we shall be told, that the "implied faith" in the acts of cession + of Maryland and Virginia was <em>not</em> that Congress should + <em>never</em> abolish slavery in the District, but that it should not do + it until <em>they</em> had done it within their bounds! Verily this + "faith" comes little short of the faith of miracles! "A good rule that works + both ways." First, Maryland and Virginia have "good faith" that Congress will + <em>not</em> abolish until <em>they</em> do; and then just as "good + faith" that Congress <em>will</em> abolish <em>when</em> they do! + Excellently accommodated! Did those States suppose that Congress would + legislate over the national domain, the common jurisdiction of + <em>all</em>, for Maryland and Virginia alone? And who, did they suppose, + would be judges in the matter?—themselves merely? or the whole Union? + + </p> + <p> + This "good faith implied in the cession" is no longer of doubtful + interpretation. The principle at the bottom of it, when fairly stated, is + this:—That the Government of the United States are bound in "good faith" + to do in the District of Columbia, without demurring, just what and when, + Maryland and Virginia do in their own States. In short, that the general + government is eased of all the burdens of legislation within its exclusive + jurisdiction, save that of hiring a scrivener to copy off the acts of the + Maryland and Virginia legislatures as fast as they are passed, and engross + them, under the title of "Laws of the United States, for the District of + Columbia!" A slight additional expense would also be incurred in keeping up an + express between the capitols + + of those States and Washington city, bringing Congress from time to time + its "<em>instructions</em>" from head quarters—instructions not to + be disregarded without a violation of that "good faith implied in the + cession," &c. + + </p> + <p> + This sets in strong light the advantages of "our glorious Union," if the + doctrine of Mr. Clay and the thirty-six Senators be orthodox. The people + of the United States have been permitted to set up at their own expense, + and on their own territory, two great <i>sounding + boards</i> called "Senate Chamber" and "Representatives' Hall," for the + purpose of sending abroad "by authority" <i>national</i> + echoes of <em>state</em> legislation!—permitted also to keep in + their pay a corps of pliant <i>national</i> musicians, + with peremptory instructions to sound on any line of the staff according as + Virginia and Maryland may give the <i>sovereign</i> key + note! + + </p> + <p> + Though this may have the seeming of mere raillery, yet an analysis of + the resolution and of the discussions upon it, will convince every fair mind + that it is but the legitimate carrying out of the <em>principle</em> + pervading both. They proceed virtually upon the hypothesis that the will and + pleasure of Virginia and Maryland are <em>paramount</em> to those of the + <em>Union</em>. If the main design of setting apart a federal district + had been originally the accommodation of Maryland, Virginia, and the south, + with the United States as an <i>agent</i> to consummate + the object, there could hardly have been higher assumption or louder vaunting. + The sole object of <em>having</em> such a District was in effect totally + perverted in the resolution of Mr. Clay, and in the discussions of the entire + southern delegation, upon its passage. Instead of taking the ground, that the + benefit of the whole Union was the sole <em>object</em> of a federal + district, that it was designed to guard and promote the interests of + <em>all</em> the states, and that it was to be legislated over + <em>for this end</em>—the resolution proceeds upon an hypothesis + <em>totally the reverse</em>. It takes a single point of + <em>state</em> policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL interests, utterly + overshadowing them; abrogating national <em>rights</em>; making void a + clause of the Constitution; humbling the general government into a + subject—crouching for favors to a superior, and that too + <em>on its own exclusive jurisdiction</em>. All the attributes of + sovereignty vested in Congress by the Constitution it impales upon the + point of an alleged <em>implication</em>. And this is Mr. Clay's + peace-offering, to appease the lust of power and the ravenings of state + encroachment! A "compromise," forsooth! that sinks the general Government on + <em>its own territory</em> into a mere colony, with Virginia and Maryland + for its "mother country!" It is refreshing to turn from these shallow, + distorted constructions and servile cringings, to the high bearing of other + southern men in other times; men, who in their character of legislators and + lawyers, disdained to accommodate their interpretations of constitutions and + charters to geographical lines, or to bend them to the purposes of a political + canvass. In the celebrated case of Cohens vs. the State of Virginia, Hon. + William Pinkney, late of Baltimore, and Hon. Walter Jones, of Washington city, + with other eminent constitutional lawyers, prepared an elaborate written + opinion, from which the following is an extract: "Nor is there any danger + to be apprehended from allowing to Congressional legislation with regard to + the District of Columbia, its FULLEST EFFECT. Congress is responsible to + the States, and to the people for that legislation. It is in truth the + legislation of the states over a district placed under their control for + <em>their own benefit</em>, not for that of the District, except as the + prosperity of the District is involved, and necessary to the <em>general + advantage</em>."—[Life of Pinkney, p. 612.] + + </p> + <p> + The profound legal opinion, from which this is an extract, was elaborated + at great length many years since, by a number of the most distinguished + + lawyers in the United States, whose signatures are appended to it. It is + specific and to the point. It asserts, 1st, that Congressional legislation + over the District, is "the legislation of the <em>States</em> and the + <em>people</em>," (not of <em>two</em> states, and a mere + <em>fraction</em> of the people;) 2d. "Over a District placed under + <em>their</em> control," i.e. under the control of the <em>whole</em> + of the States, not under the control of <em>two twenty-sixths</em> of + them. 3d. That it was thus put under their Control "<em>for THEIR OWN + benefit</em>," the benefit of all the States <em>equally</em>; not to + secure special benefits to Maryland and Virginia, (or what it might be + <em>conjectured</em> they would regard as benefits.) 4th. It concludes by + asserting that the design of this exclusive control of Congress over the + District was "not for the benefit of the <em>District</em>," except as + that is <em>connected</em> with, and <em>a means of promoting</em> the + <em>general</em> advantage. If this is the case with the + <em>District</em>, which is <em>directly</em> concerned, it is + pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia, who are but + <em>indirectly</em> interested, and would be but remotely affected by it. + The argument of Mr. Madison in the Congress of '89, an extract from which has + been given on a preceding page, lays down the same principle; that though any + matter "<i>may be a local affair, yet if it involves national + EXPENSE OR SAFETY, it becomes of concern to every part of the union, and is + a proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general + administration of the government</i>." Cong. Reg. vol. 1. p. 310, 11. + + </p> + <p> + But these are only the initiatory absurdities of this "good + faith <em>implied</em>." The thirty-six senators aptly illustrate the + principle, that error not only conflicts with truth, but is generally at + issue with itself. For if it would be a violation of "good faith" to Maryland + and Virginia, for Congress to abolish slavery in the District, it would be + <em>equally</em> a violation for Congress to do it <em>with the + consent</em>, or even at the earnest and unanimous petition of the + people of the District: yet for years it has been the southern doctrine, that + if the people of the District demand of Congress relief in this respect, it + has power, as their local legislature, to grant it, and by abolishing slavery + there, carry out the will of the citizens. But now new light has broken in! + The optics of the thirty-six have pierced the millstone with a deeper insight, + and discoveries thicken faster than they can be telegraphed! Congress has no + power, O no, not a modicum, to help the slaveholders of the District, however + loudly they may clamor for it. The southern doctrine, that Congress is + to the District a mere local Legislature to do its pleasure, is tumbled from + the genitive into the vocative! Hard fate—and that too at the hands of + those who begat it! The reasonings of Messrs. Pinckney, Wise, and Leigh, are + now found to be wholly at fault, and the chanticleer rhetoric of Messrs. + Glascock and Garland stalks featherless and crest-fallen. For, Mr. Clay's + resolution sweeps by the board all those stereotyped common-places, as + "Congress a local Legislature," "consent of the District," "bound to consult + the wishes of the District," &c. &c., which for the last two sessions + of Congress have served to eke out scanty supplies. It declares, that + <i>as slavery existed in Maryland and Virginia at the time + of the cession, and as it still continues in both those states, it could not + be abolished in the District without a violation of 'that good + faith</i>,' &c. + + </p> + <p> + But let us see where this principle of the <em>thirty-six</em> will lead + us. If "implied faith" to Maryland and Virginia <em>restrains</em> + Congress from the abolition of slavery in the District, it + <em>requires</em> Congress to do in the District + what those states have done within their bounds, i.e., restrain + <em>others</em> from abolishing it. Upon the same principle Congress is + <em>bound</em>, by the doctrine of Mr. Clay's resolution, to + <em>prohibit emancipation</em> within the District. + There is no <em>stopping place</em> for this plighted "faith." Congress + must + + not only refrain from laying violent hands on slavery, <em>itself</em>, + and see to it that the slaveholders themselves do not, but it is bound to keep + the system up to the Maryland and Virginia standard of vigor! + + </p> + <p> + Again, if the good faith of Congress to Virginia and Maryland requires + that slavery should exist in the District, while it exists in those states, it + requires that it should exist there <em>as</em> it exists in those states. + If to abolish <em>every</em> form of slavery in the District would violate + good faith, to abolish <em>the</em> form existing in those states, and to + substitute a totally different one, would also violate it. The Congressional + "good faith" is to be kept not only with <em>slavery</em>, but with the + <em>Maryland and Virginia systems</em> of slavery. The faith of + those states not being in the preservation of <em>a</em> system, but of + <em>their</em> system; otherwise Congress, instead of + <em>sustaining</em>, would counteract their policy—principles + would be brought into action there conflicting with their system, + and thus the true spirit of the "implied" pledge would be violated. On + this principle, so long as slaves are "chattels personal" in Virginia and + Maryland, Congress could not make them <i>real estate</i>, + inseparable from the soil, as in Louisiana; nor could it permit slaves to + read, nor to worship God according to conscience; nor could it grant them + trial by jury, nor legalize marriage; nor require the master to give + sufficient food and clothing; nor prohibit the violent sundering of + families—because such provisions would conflict with the existing slave + laws of Virginia and Maryland, and thus violate the "good faith implied," + &c. So the principle of the resolution binds Congress in all these + particulars: 1st. Not to abolish slavery in the District <em>until</em> + Virginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any <em>part</em> of it + that exists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any <em>form</em> or + <em>appendage</em> of it still existing in those states. 4th. <em>To + abolish</em> when they do. 5th. To increase or abate its rigors <em>when, + how</em>, and <em>as</em> the same are modified by those states. In a + word, Congressional action in the District is to float passively in the wake + of legislative action on the subject in those states. + + </p> + <p> + But here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states + should steer different courses—then there would be <em>two</em> + wakes! Can Congress float in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! + Its obsequiousness equals its "power of legislation in <em>all</em> cases + whatsoever." It can float <em>up</em> on the Virginia tide, and ebb down + on the Maryland at the same time. What Maryland does, Congress will do in the + Maryland part. What Virginia does, Congress will do in the Virginia part. + Though Congress might not always be able to run at the bidding of both + <em>at once</em>, especially in different directions, yet if it obeyed + orders cheerfully, and "kept in its place," according to its "good faith + implied," impossibilities might not be rigidly exacted. True, we have the + highest sanction for the maxim that no <em>man</em> can serve two + masters—but if "corporations have <em>no</em> souls," analogy would + absolve Congress on that score, or at most give it only <em>a very small + soul</em>—not large enough to be at all in the way, as an + <em>exception</em> to the universal rule laid down in the maxim! + + </p> + <p> + In following out the absurdities of this "<em>implied</em> good faith," + it will be seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to + <em>all the subjects</em> of <em>legislation</em> existing in Maryland + and Virginia, which exist also within the District. Every system, + "institution," law, and established usage there, is placed beyond + Congressional control equally with slavery, and by the same "implied faith." + The abolition of the lottery system in the District as an + <em>immorality</em>, was a flagrant breach of this "good faith" to + Maryland and Virginia, as the system "still continued in those states." So + to abolish imprisonment for debt, and capital punishment, to remodel + the bank system, the power of corporations, the militia law, laws of + + limitation, &c., in the District, <em>unless Virginia and Maryland took + the lead</em>, would violate the "good faith implied in the cession," + &c. + + </p> + <p> + That in the acts of cession no such "good faith" was "implied by Virginia + and Maryland" as is claimed in the Resolution, we argue from the + fact, that in 1784 Virginia ceded to the United States all her northwest + territory, with the special proviso that her citizens inhabiting that + territory should "have their <em>possessions</em> and <em>titles</em> + confirmed to them, and be <em>protected</em> in the enjoyment of their + <em>rights</em> and liberties." (See Journals of Congress, vol. 9, p. 63.) + The cession was made in the form of a deed, and signed by Thomas Jefferson, + Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe. Many of these inhabitants + <em>held slaves</em>. Three years after the cession, the Virginia + delegation in Congress <em>proposed</em> the passage of an ordinance + which should abolish slavery, in that territory, and declare that it should + never thereafter exist there. All the members of Congress from Virginia and + Maryland voted for this ordinance. Suppose some member of Congress + had during the passage of the ordinance introduced the following + resolution: "Resolved, That when the northwest territory was ceded + by Virginia to the United States, domestic slavery existed in that State, + including the ceded territory, and as it still continues in that State, + it could not be abolished within the territory without a violation of that + good faith, which was implied in the cession and in the acceptance of the + territory." What would have been the indignant response of Grayson, Griffin, + Madison, and the Lees, in the Congress of '87, to such a resolution, and of + Carrington, Chairman of the Committee, who reported the ratification of the + ordinance in the Congress of '89, and of Page and Parker, who with every + other member of the Virginia delegation supported it! + + </p> + <p> + But to enumerate all the absurdities into which the thirty-six Senators + have plunged themselves, would be to make a quarto inventory. We decline + the task; and in conclusion, merely add that Mr. Clay, in presenting + this resolution, and each of the thirty-six Senators who voted for it, entered + on the records of the Senate, and proclaimed to the world, a most unworthy + accusation against the MILLIONS of American citizens who have during nearly + half a century petitioned the national legislature to abolish slavery in the + District of Columbia,—charging them either with the ignorance or the + impiety of praying the nation to violate its "PLIGHTED FAITH." The resolution + virtually indicts at the bar of public opinion, and brands with odium, all the + Manumission Societies, the <em>first</em> petitioners for the abolition of + slavery in the District, and for a long time the only ones, petitioning from + year to year through evil report and good report, still petitioning, by + individual societies and in their national conventions. + + </p> + <p> + But as if it were not enough to table the charge against such men as Benjamin + Rush, William Rawle, John Sergeant, Robert Vaux, Cadwallader Colden, and + Peter A. Jay,—to whom we may add Rufus King, James Hillhouse, + William Pinkney, Thomas Addis Emmett, Daniel D. Tompkins, De + Witt Clinton, James Kent, and Daniel Webster, besides eleven hundred + citizens of the District itself, headed by their Chief Justice and + judges—even + the sovereign States of Pennsylvania, New-York, Massachusetts, and Vermont, + whose legislatures have either memorialized Congress to abolish slavery + in the District, or instructed their Senators to move such a measure, must be + gravely informed by Messrs. Clay, Norvell, Niles, Smith, Pierce, Benton, + Black, Tipton, and other honorable Senators, either that their perception is + so dull, they know not what of they affirm, or that their moral sense is so + blunted they can demand without compunction a violation of the nation's faith! + + </p> + <p> + We have spoken already of the concessions unwittingly made in this + + resolution to the true doctrine of Congressional power over the District. + For that concession, important as it is, we have small thanks to render. + That such a resolution, passed with such an <em>intent</em>, and pressing + at a thousand points on relations and interests vital to the free states, + should be hailed, as it has been, by a portion of the northern press as a + "compromise" originating in deference to northern interests, and to be + received by us as a free-will offering of disinterested benevolence, demanding + our gratitude to the mover,—may well cover us with shame. We deserve the + humiliation and have well earned the mockery. Let it come! + + </p> + <p> + If, after having been set up at auction in the public sales-room of the + nation, and for thirty years, and by each of a score of "compromises," + treacherously knocked off to the lowest bidder, and that without money and + without price, the North, plundered and betrayed, <em>will not</em>, in + this her accepted time, consider the things that belong to her peace before + they are hidden from her eyes, then let her eat of the fruit of her own way, + and be filled with her own devices! Let the shorn and blinded giant grind in + the prison-house of the Philistines, till taught the folly of intrusting to + Delilahs the secret and the custody of his strength. + + </p> + <p> + Have the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the + lessons of experience? If lost to <em>reason</em>, are they dead to + <em>instinct</em> also? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self + preservation? And shall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal + sacrifice? + + </p> + <p> + A "COMPROMISE!" Bitter irony! Is the plucked and hood-winked + North to be wheedled by the sorcery of another Missouri compromise? A + compromise in which the South gained all, and the North lost all, and lost it + for ever. A compromise which embargoed the free laborer of the North and + West, and clutched at the staff he leaned upon, to turn it into a bludgeon and + fell him with its stroke. A compromise which wrested from liberty her + boundless birthright domain, stretching westward to the sunset, while it gave + to slavery loose reins and a free course, from the Mississippi to the Pacific. + + </p> + <p> + The resolution, as it finally passed, is here inserted. The original + Resolution, as moved by Mr. Clay, was inserted at the head of this postscript + with the impression that it was the <em>amended</em> form. It will be seen + however, that it underwent no material modification. + + </p> + <p> + "Resolved, That the interference by the citizens of any of the states, + with the view to the abolition of slavery in the District, is endangering the + rights and security of the people of the District; and that any act or measure + of Congress designed to abolish slavery in the District, would be a violation + of the faith implied in the cessions by the states of Virginia and Maryland, + a just cause of alarm to the people of the slaveholding states, and + have a direct and inevitable tendency to disturb and endanger the Union." + + </p> + <p> + The vote upon the Resolution stood as follows: + + </p> + <p><i>Yeas</i>.—Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benton, Black, + Buchanan, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, of Alabama, Clay, of Kentucky, Clayton, + Crittenden, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, + Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Preston, Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smith, of + Connecticut, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, White, Williams, Wright, + Young. + + </p> + <p><i>Nays</i>.—Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, + PRENTISS, RUGGLES, SMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER. + + </p> + </div> + </div> + <hr> + <address> 1836 By The American Anti-Slavery Society. + <br> + <!-- +Generated from projectID3ec2855c3002e using an XSLT version 1 stylesheet +based on c:\downloads\saxon6_5_3teihtml.xsl +processed using SAXON 6.5.3 from Michael Kay +on 2004-02-24T08:44:39-06:00--></address> + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 1 of 4 +by American Anti-Slavery Society + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, PART 1 OF 4 *** + +***** This file should be named 11271-h.htm or 11271-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/1/2/7/11271/ + +Produced by Stan Goodman, Amy Overmyer and PG Distributed Proofreaders + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's +eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, +compressed (zipped), HTML and others. + +Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks replace the old file and take over +the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. +VERSIONS based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving +new filenames and etext numbers. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +EBooks posted prior to November 2003, with eBook numbers BELOW #10000, +are filed in directories based on their release date. If you want to +download any of these eBooks directly, rather than using the regular +search system you may utilize the following addresses and just +download by the etext year. + + https://www.gutenberg.org/etext06 + + (Or /etext 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99, + 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90) + +EBooks posted since November 2003, with etext numbers OVER #10000, are +filed in a different way. The year of a release date is no longer part +of the directory path. The path is based on the etext number (which is +identical to the filename). The path to the file is made up of single +digits corresponding to all but the last digit in the filename. For +example an eBook of filename 10234 would be found at: + + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/0/2/3/10234 + +or filename 24689 would be found at: + https://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/6/8/24689 + +An alternative method of locating eBooks: + https://www.gutenberg.org/GUTINDEX.ALL + + + + +</pre> + + </body> +</html> |