6 files changed, 77420 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/old/11271-8.txt b/old/11271-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..654d1b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/11271-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,24290 @@
+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
+
+
+
+
+THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER PART 1 OF 4
+
+BY The American Anti-Slavery Society
+
+1836
+
+
+
+
+
+
+    No. 1. To the People of the United States; or, To Such Americans
+    As Value Their Rights, and Dare to Maintain Them.
+
+    No. 2. Appeal to the Christian Women of the South.
+
+    No. 2. Appeal to the Christian Women of the South. Revised and
+    Corrected.
+
+    No. 3. Letter of Gerrit Smith to Rev. James Smylie, of the State
+    of Mississippi.
+
+    No. 4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the
+    Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human Rights.
+
+    No. 4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the
+    Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human Rights.
+    Third Edition--Revised.
+
+    No. 4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the
+    Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human Rights.
+    Fourth Edition--Enlarged.
+
+    No. 5. Power of Congress Over the District of Columbia.
+
+    No. 5. Power of Congress Over the District of Columbia. With
+    Additions by the Author.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER
+
+
+
+VOL. I. AUGUST, 1836. NO. 1.
+
+
+
+TO THE
+
+PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES;
+
+OR, TO SUCH AMERICANS AS VALUE THEIR RIGHTS, AND
+
+DARE TO MAINTAIN THEM.
+
+
+FELLOW COUNTRYMEN!
+
+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]." 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[B]. 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[C]. 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[D].
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Churches in New-York attacked by the mob in 1834.]
+
+
+[Footnote C: See two cases within the last twelve months in New
+Hampshire.]
+
+
+[Footnote D: Samuel Beardsley, Esq. the leader of the Utica riot, was
+shortly afterwards appointed Attorney General of the state of New-York.]
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+POSTAGE--This Periodical contains one sheet, postage under 100 miles, is
+1 1-2 cents over 100 miles, 2 1-2 cents.
+
+"The freedom of the press--the palladium of liberty," was once a
+household proverb. Now, a printing office[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[B].
+
+[Footnote A: Office of the Utica Standard and Democrat newspaper.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: See speech of the Hon. Silas Wright in the U.S. Senate of
+Feb. 1836.]
+
+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 _political_ 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.
+
+
+    "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.
+
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _no
+action can be had_? 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.
+
+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]. 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 _by a
+resolution_, and not by law!
+
+[Footnote 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."]
+
+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 _any way_ or to _any extent_ whatever to the subject of slavery,"
+shall be laid on the table, and "no further action _whatever_ 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!
+
+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 _any way_, or to _any extent_, relating to slavery!
+
+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.
+
+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, _in any way_, or to _any
+extent whatever_, 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
+_in all cases whatsoever_." 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].
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+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] 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!!"
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+In March, 1816, John Randolph submitted the following resolution to the
+House of Representatives: "_Resolved_, That a Committee be appointed to
+inquire into the existence of an _inhuman_ 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
+_was adopted_. Such a resolution would _now_ "be laid on the table," and
+treated with silent contempt.
+
+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 _only one_ 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 _any_ petition relating to slavery.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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. "_Resolved_, 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!
+
+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]. 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!
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+"Whereas, it is extremely important and desirable that the AGITATION on
+this subject should be finally ARRESTED, for the purpose of restoring
+_tranquillity_ to the public mind, your committee respectfully recommend
+the following resolution."
+
+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!
+
+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 _only_ 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.
+
+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. _We_ 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 _alone_. 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+_In behalf of the American Anti-Slavery Society._
+
+
+ARTHUR TAPPAN,      \
+
+WM. JAY,             \
+
+JNO. RANKIN,          \
+
+LEWIS TAPPAN,          \
+
+S.S. JOCELYN,           \
+
+S.E. CORNISH,           |   _Executive Committee_.
+
+JOSHUA LEAVITT,         /
+
+ABRAHAM L. COX,        /
+
+AMOS A. PHELPS,       /
+
+LA ROY SUNDERLAND,   /
+
+THEO. S. WRIGHT,    /
+
+ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR. /
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+Published by the American Anti-Slavery Society, corner of Spruce and
+Nassau Streets.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+
+
+VOL. I.     SEPTEMBER 1836.     No. 2.
+
+
+
+
+APPEAL
+
+TO THE
+
+CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH,
+
+
+
+
+BY A.E. GRIMKÉ.
+
+    "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 _if I perish, I perish._" Esther IV.
+    13-16.
+
+
+RESPECTED FRIENDS,
+
+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 _now_, 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.
+
+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 _no_ personal interest whatever in _me_. But I feel an
+interest in _you_, 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 _you_, 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 _do feel_ and _do pray_ 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
+_not_ 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 _truths in
+love_, and remember Solomon says, "faithful are the _wounds_ of a
+friend." I do not believe the time has yet come when _Christian women_
+"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 _you_.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+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.
+
+To all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers, (for you
+are all _one_ 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 _supporters_ of the slave
+system," says Jonathan Dymond in his admirable work on the Principles of
+Morality, "will _hereafter_ be regarded with the _same_ public feeling,
+as he who was an advocate for the slave trade _now is_." It will be, and
+that very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged by all the
+virtuous and the candid, that in _principle_ 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 _all_ men are created equal, and that they have
+certain _inalienable_ rights among which are life, _liberty_, and the
+pursuit of happiness." It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a man
+can be legally born a slave under _our free Republican_ 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 _all_ men, every where and
+of every color are born equal, and have an _inalienable right to
+liberty_, then it is equally true that _no_ man can be born a slave, and
+no man can ever _rightfully_ be reduced to _involuntary_ bondage and
+held as a slave, however fair may be the claim of his master or mistress
+through wills and title-deeds.
+
+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 _this test_ 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 _no additional_ 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
+_irrational_ beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion
+over _all of them_ is granted, yet _man_ is _never_ vested with this
+dominion _over his fellow man;_ he was never told that any of the human
+species were put _under his feet;_ it was only _all things_, and man,
+who was created in the image of his Maker, _never_ can properly be
+termed a _thing_, though the laws of Slave States do call him "a chattel
+personal;" _Man_ then, I assert _never_ was put _under the feet of man_,
+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.
+
+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 _not_ tell us what
+_ought to be_, 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 _not
+cover one sin_ in the awful day of account. Hear what our Saviour says
+on this subject; "it must needs be that offences come, but _woe unto
+that man through whom they come_"--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, _ye_ have taken, and by _wicked_ hands have
+crucified and slain." Other striking instances might be adduced, but
+these will suffice.
+
+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 mine_ heir." From this it appears that one of his _servants_ 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 _his_ 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, _every_ 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 _servants_ 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 _rights of servants_ 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 _household_ 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;
+_Are you_ careful to have _all_ that are born in your house or bought
+with money of any stranger, baptized? Are _you_ as faithful as Abraham
+to command _your household to keep the way of the Lord?_ I leave it to
+your own consciences to decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like
+American Slavery?
+
+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 _servitude_ 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.
+
+1. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself, i.e. his
+services, for six years, in which case _he_ received the purchase money
+_himself_. Lev. xxv, 39.
+
+2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e. his _daughters_,
+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 _father_ received
+the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were
+in the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives_, _not_ as slaves. Ex.
+xxi, 7.
+
+3. Insolvent debtors might be delivered to their creditors as servants.
+2 Kings iv, 1.
+
+4. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold for
+the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.
+
+5. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.
+
+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 _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred,
+and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.
+
+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 _they had sold themselves_ in the dark hour of
+adversity? No! Were they born in slavery? No! No! not according to
+_Jewish Law_, for the servants who were born in servitude among them,
+were born of parents who had _sold themselves_ 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,
+_their_ fathers _never_ have received the poor compensation of silver or
+gold for the tears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless
+bondage of _their_ 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 _fathers of the South ever sell
+their daughters?_ My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the
+awful affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell
+their daughters, _not_ 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 _not_ become slaves in any of the six different ways in which
+Hebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters
+_cannot_ according to _Jewish law_ substantiate their claim to the men,
+women, or children they now hold in bondage.
+
+But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced to
+servitude; it was this, he might he _stolen_ 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]." As I have tried American Slavery by _legal_ Hebrew
+servitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that Jewish law
+cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by _illegal_
+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
+_to Hebrew Law they have been stolen_.
+
+[Footnote 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 _that thief shall die_, and thou shalt put away evil from
+among you." Deut. xxiv, 7.]
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _children_ of these servants ever were reduced
+to servitude. Lev. xxv, 44.
+
+I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of Hebrew
+masters over their _heathen_ slaves. Were the southern slaves taken
+captive in war? No! Were they bought from the heathen? No! for surely,
+no one will _now_ 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 _not_ 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?
+
+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 _both_ 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:
+
+1. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God.
+
+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].
+
+[Footnote A: And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt
+not let him go away empty: 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, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv,
+13, 14.]
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _forever_. Ex. xxi, 3-6.
+
+6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that
+it perish, he shall let him go _free_ 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 _free_ for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.
+
+7. On the Sabbath rest was secured to servants by the fourth
+commandment. Ex. xx, 10.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+From these laws we learn that Hebrew men servants were bound to serve
+their masters _only six_ 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 _there_ his ear was _publicly_
+bored, and by submitting to this operation he testified his willingness
+to serve him _forever_, i.e. during his life, for Jewish Rabbins who
+must have understood Jewish _slavery_, (as it is called,) "affirm that
+servants were set free at the death of their masters and did _not_
+descend to their heirs:" or that he was to serve him until the year of
+Jubilee, when _all_ 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 _free_,
+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."
+
+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 _only_ 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 _things_, "chattels personal;" if so, why were so
+many laws made to _secure their rights as men_, and to ensure their
+rising into equality and freedom? If they were mere _things_, 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
+_female_ Jewish servants were protected by _law_.
+
+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.
+
+2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after
+the manner of daughters.
+
+3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of
+marriage, shall he not diminish.
+
+4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out _free_
+without money.
+
+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 _always_ 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 _go out free_ without money."
+Thus were the _rights of female servants carefully secured by law_ under
+the Jewish Dispensation; and now I would ask, are the rights of female
+slaves at the South thus secured? Are _they_ sold only as wives and
+daughters-in-law, and when not treated as such, are they allowed to _go
+out free_? No! They have _all_ not only been illegally obtained as
+servants according to Hebrew law, but they are also illegally _held_ in
+bondage. Masters at the South and West have all forfeited their claims,
+(_if they ever had any_,) to their female slaves.
+
+We come now to examine the case of those servants who were "of the
+heathen round about;" Were _they_ 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 _alien
+born_ slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew Church by circumcision,
+_there is no doubt_ but that it applied to _all_ 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.
+
+There are however two other laws which I have not yet noticed. The one
+effectually prevented _all involuntary_ servitude, and the other
+completely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were
+equally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew.
+
+1. "Thou shall _not_ 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 _not_ oppress him." Deut. xxxiii; 15, 16.
+
+2. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim _Liberty_
+throughout _all_ the land, unto _all_ the inhabitants thereof: it shall
+be a jubilee unto you." Deut. xxv, 10.
+
+Here, then, we see that by this first law, the _door of Freedom was
+opened wide to every servant who_ had any cause whatever for complaint;
+if he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him,
+and _no man_ had a right to deliver him back to him again, and not only
+so, but the absconded servant was to _choose_ 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 _by law_ 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 _human_ law, under the _Christian
+Dispensation_, in the _nineteenth century_ we are commanded to do, what
+_God_ more than _three thousand_ years ago, under the _Mosaic
+Dispensation_, _positively commanded_ the Jews _not_ to do. In the wide
+domain even of our free states, there is not _one_ 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 _man_, by the strong
+arm of the law; no! _not one_. 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, _consenting_ unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the
+raiment of them that slew him, I know not; but one thing I do know, the
+_guilt of the North_ 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, "_Who_ hath required _this_ at thy hand?" It will be found _no_
+excuse then that the Constitution of our country required that _persons
+bound to service_ escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no
+more excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the
+forbidden fruit. _He was condemned and punished because_ he hearkened to
+the voice of _his wife_, rather than to the command of his Maker; and
+_we_ will assuredly be condemned and punished for obeying _Man_ rather
+than _God_, if we do not speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for
+repentance. Yea, are we not receiving chastisement even _now_?
+
+But by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is
+disclosed. If the first effectually prevented _all involuntary
+servitude_, the last absolutely forbade even _voluntary servitude being
+perpetual_. On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the
+Jubilee trumpet was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and _Liberty_
+was proclaimed to _all_ the inhabitants thereof. I will not say that the
+servants' _chains_ fell off and their _manacles_ were burst, for there
+is no evidence that Jewish servants _ever_ 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 _heathen_ 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 _perpetual servitude_ existing among
+them.
+
+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
+_slavery_ when speaking of Jewish servitude; and simply for this reason,
+that _no such thing_ existed among that people; the word translated
+servant does _not_ mean _slave_, it is the same that is applied to
+Abraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets generally. _Slavery_ then
+_never_ 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 "_God sanctioned, yea commanded
+slavery_ 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 _ever_ sanctioned such a system
+of cruelty and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him.
+
+We have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard to
+servants was designed to _protect them_ as _men and women_, to secure to
+them their _rights_ as _human beings_, 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.
+
+1. _Slavery_ is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the
+slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest
+posterity.
+
+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].
+
+[Footnote 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, _one quart_ of
+corn per day, or _one peck_ per week, or _one bushel_ 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 _always_ be defeated."
+ED.]
+
+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.
+
+4. Slaves can make no contracts and have no _legal_ right to any
+property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings and the legacies
+of friends belong in point of law to their masters.
+
+5. Neither a slave nor a free colored person can be a witness against
+any _white_, 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 _slave_; but they may give testimony
+_against a fellow slave_, or free colored man, even in cases affecting
+life, if the _master_ is to reap the advantage of it.
+
+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.
+
+7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under _any_
+circumstances, _his_ only safety consists in the fact that his _owner_
+may bring suit and recover the price of his body, in case his life is
+taken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor.
+
+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.
+
+9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations.
+
+10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the
+master is willing to enfranchise them.
+
+11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious
+instruction and consolation.
+
+12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of
+the lowest ignorance.
+
+13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right.
+What is a trifling fault in the _white_ man, is considered highly
+criminal in the _slave_; the same offences which cost a white man a few
+dollars only, are punished in the negro with death.
+
+14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color[A].
+
+[Footnote A:  See Mrs. Child's Appeal, Chap. II.]
+
+Shall I ask you now my friends, to draw the _parallel_ between Jewish
+_servitude_ and American _slavery_? No! For there is _no likeness_ in
+the two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The laws of
+Moses _protected servants_ in their _rights as men and women_, guarded
+them from oppression and defended them from wrong. The Code Noir of the
+South _robs the slave of all his rights_ as a _man_, reduces him to a
+chattel personal, and defends the _master_ 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
+_thing_; before we can claim the right to set our feet upon his neck,
+because it was only _all things_ which were originally _put under the
+feet of man_ by the Almighty and Beneficent Father of all, who has
+declared himself to be _no respecter_ of persons, whether red, white, or
+black.
+
+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. That he saw nothing of
+_perpetual_ servitude is certain from the simple declaration made by
+himself in John, viii, 35. "The servant abideth _not_ in the house for
+ever, the son abideth ever." If then He did not condemn Jewish
+_temporary_ servitude, this does not prove that he would not have
+condemned such a monstrous system as that of AMERICAN _slavery_, if that
+had existed among them. But did not Jesus condemn slavery? Let us
+examine some of his precepts. "_Whatsoever_ ye would that men should do
+to you, do _ye even so to them_." Let every slaveholder apply these
+queries to his own heart; Am _I_ willing to be a slave--Am _I_ willing
+to see _my_ husband the slave of another--Am _I_ willing to see my
+mother a slave, or my father, my _white_ sister, or my _white_ brother?
+If _not_, then in holding others as slaves, I am doing what I would
+_not_ wish to be done to me or any relative I have; and thus have I
+broken this golden rule which was given _me_ to walk by.
+
+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 _my little
+child_ to slavery? You know that _if it is brought up a slave_, 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--_not by
+nature_--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 "_God never made a slave_," he
+made man upright; his back was _not_ made to carry burdens as the slave
+of another, nor his neck to wear a yoke, and the _man_ must be crushed
+within him, before _his_ back can be _fitted_ to the burden of perpetual
+slavery; and that his back is _not_ 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 _they_ were all placed _under the
+feet of man_, 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 _not so with
+man_, intellectual, immortal man! I appeal to you, my friends, as
+mothers; Are you willing to enslave _your_ children? You start back with
+horror and indignation at such a question. But why, if slavery is _no
+wrong_ 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 _your children_ 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
+_yourselves_, that you involuntarily shrink from the test; as soon as
+_your_ actions are weighed in _this_ balance of the sanctuary, that _you
+are found wanting?_ Try yourselves by another of the Divine precepts,
+"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Can we love a man _as_ we
+love _ourselves_ 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 _not_ to be ministered unto, but to
+minister." Can you for a moment imagine the meek, and lowly, and
+compassionate Saviour, a _slaveholder_? do you not shudder at this
+thought as much as at that of his being a _warrior_? But why, if slavery
+is not sinful?
+
+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 _bound to protect_ the runaway, _he had no
+right_ 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, _not_ now as a
+_servant_, but _above_ 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 _me_ therefore as a partner, _receive him as myself._" 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 _slave_, 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 _nothing from a servant_, though he be
+lord of all. But is under _tutors_ and governors until the time
+appointed of the father." From this it appears, that the means of
+_instruction_ were provided for _servants_ 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 _your
+slaves_? are their minds enlightened, and they gradually prepared to
+rise from the grade of menials into that of _free_, independent members
+of the state? Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience,
+answer these questions.
+
+If this apostle sanctioned _slavery_, 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) _forbearing threatening_; knowing that your master also is in
+heaven, neither is _there respect of persons with him_." And in
+Colossians, "Masters give unto your servants that which is _just and
+equal_, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." Let slaveholders
+only _obey_ these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery would
+soon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to _threaten_ 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, "_no striker_." Let
+masters give unto their servants that which is _just_ and _equal_, and
+all that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. Yes,
+and if they once felt they had no right to the _labor_ 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 "_menstealers_," which word may be translated
+"_slavedealers_." 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
+_gentlemen of fortune and standing_ who employ them as _their_ agents?
+Why more than the _professors of religion_ 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 _principle_, in _Christian ethics_, between the
+despised slavedealer and the _Christian_ 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 _slavedealers_. It is then the
+_Christians_ and the _honorable men_ and _women_ of the South, who are
+the _main pillars_ of this grand temple built to Mammon and to Moloch.
+It is the _most enlightened_ in every country who are _most_ to blame
+when any public sin is supported by public opinion, hence Isaiah says,
+"_When_ the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount _Zion_ and on
+_Jerusalem_, (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 _after_ Judah's,
+and seventy years _after_ Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by
+Cyrus, king of Persia? Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, "judgment
+must _begin at the house of God_." Surely this would not be the case, if
+the _professors of religion_ were not _most worthy_ of blame.
+
+But it may be asked, why are _they_ 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, "_You only_ have I known of all the families of the earth:
+_therefore_ I will punish you for all your iniquities." Hear too the
+doctrine of our Lord on this important subject; "The servant who _knew_
+his Lord's will and _prepared not_ himself, neither did according to his
+will, shall be beaten with _many_ stripes": and why? "For unto
+whomsoever _much_ is given, _of him_ shall _much_ be required; and to
+whom men have committed _much_, of _him_ they will ask the _more_." Oh!
+then that the _Christians_ of the south would ponder these things in
+their hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which rest _upon
+them_ at this important crisis.
+
+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 _no_ excuse whatever to
+slavedealers. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal
+dispensation. Fifth, that _slavery never_ existed under the Jewish
+dispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed under
+the _protection of law_, and care taken not only to prevent all
+_involuntary_ servitude, but all _voluntary perpetual_ bondage. Sixth,
+that slavery in America reduces a _man_ to a _thing_, a "chattel
+personal," _robs him_ of _all_ his rights as a _human being_, fetters
+both his mind and body, and protects the _master_ in the most unnatural
+and unreasonable power, whilst it _throws him out_ 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.
+
+But perhaps you will be ready to query, why appeal to _women_ on this
+subject? _We_ do not make the laws which perpetuate slavery. _No_
+legislative power is vested in _us_; _we_ 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 _you are the wives and mothers,
+the sisters and daughters of those who do_; and if you really suppose
+_you_ 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 aright, we must understand what we are praying for; it
+is only then we can "pray with the understanding and the spirit also."
+
+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 _Bible_ 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! _'tis all one_," he replied, and out went
+the sacred volume, along with the rest. We thank him for the
+acknowledgment. Yes, "_it is all one_," for our books and papers are
+mostly commentaries on the Bible, and the Declaration. Read the _Bible
+_then, it contains the words of Jesus, and they are spirit and life.
+Judge for yourselves whether _he sanctioned_ such a system of oppression
+and crime.
+
+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 _sinful_, 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, "_What is that
+to thee, follow thou me_." 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.
+
+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 _sinful_, 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 _less_ culpable on this account, even when they do wrong
+things. Discountenance _all_ cruelty to them, all starvation, all
+corporal chastisement; these may brutalize and  _break_ their spirits,
+but will never bend them to willing, cheerful obedience. If possible,
+see that they are comfortably and _seasonably_ 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
+_slavery is a crime against God and man_, and that it is a great sin to
+keep _human beings_ 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, _slaveholders must not_
+blame them, for _they_ are doing the _very same thing_, 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.
+
+
+  "Will _you_ behold unheeding,
+  Life's holiest feelings crushed,
+  Where _woman's_ heart is bleeding,
+  Shall _woman's_ voice be hushed?"
+
+
+4. Act on this subject. Some of you _own_ slaves yourselves. If you
+believe slavery is _sinful_, 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, _ought to be improved_. So precious a
+talent as intellect, never was given to be wrapt in a napkin and buried
+in the earth. It is the _duty_ of all, as far as they can, to improve
+their own mental faculties, because we are commanded to love God with
+_all our minds_, as well as with all our hearts, and we commit a great
+sin, if we _forbid or prevent_ 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 _duty_ to learn,
+if it were only that they might read the Bible.
+
+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 _ought to be no barrier_ 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? "_They_ feared _God_, and did _not_
+as the King of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive."
+Did these _women_ do right in disobeying that monarch? "_Therefore_
+(says the sacred text,) _God dealt well_ 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 _Jews_) O king, that
+_we will not_ serve thy gods, nor worship the image which thou hast set
+up." Did these men _do right in disobeying the law_ 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 _knew that the writing was
+signed_, he went into his house, and his windows being _open_ 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 _break_ 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, "_commanded them not_ 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
+_resurrection_ of the Lord Jesus;" although _this_ 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 _you_ to
+answer, who now enjoy the benefits of their labors and sufferings, in
+that Gospel they dared to preach when positively commanded _not to teach
+any more_ in the name of Jesus; Acts iv.
+
+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. _Consequences_, my friends, belong no more to
+_you_, than they did to these apostles. Duty is ours and events are
+God's. If you think slavery is sinful, all _you_ 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 _manstealing_. Such an act will be
+_clear robbery_, 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."
+
+I know that this doctrine of obeying _God_, 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 _sin_. 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 _sin I will break it_; if it calls me to _suffer_, I will let it
+take its course _unresistingly_. The doctrine of blind obedience and
+unqualified submission to _any human_ power, whether civil or
+ecclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism, and ought to have no place
+among Republicans and Christians.
+
+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 _not_ excuse you or any one else for the neglect of
+_duty_. 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 _laws of our country or public opinion are
+against us_, 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 _speak the truth_; to tell the Jews, boldly and fearlessly,
+that _they_ were the _murderers_ 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 _speak_ the _truth_, to _break_ the unrighteous _laws_ 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 _done_ good and
+faithful servants, enter ye into the joy of your Lord."
+
+But you may say we are _women_, how can _our_ hearts endure persecution?
+And why not? Have not _women_ 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 _women_ 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 _woman_; 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 _woman!_ 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 _woman_. Jael the
+wife of Heber! Judges vi, 21. Who dared to _speak the truth_ 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 _woman_. 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 _woman_; Esther
+the Queen; yes, weak and trembling _woman_ was the instrument appointed
+by God, to reverse the bloody mandate of the eastern monarch, and save
+the _whole visible church_ from destruction. What human voice first
+proclaimed to Mary that she should be the mother of our Lord? It was a
+_woman!_ 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 _woman!_
+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
+_woman!_ Who ministered to the Son of God whilst on earth, a despised
+and persecuted Reformer, in the humble garb of a carpenter? They were
+_women!_ Who followed the rejected King of Israel, as his fainting
+footsteps trod the road to Calvary? "A great company of people and of
+_women_;" and it is remarkable that to _them alone_, 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 _woman_! the
+wife of Pilate. Although "_he knew_ that for envy the Jews had delivered
+Christ," yet _he_ consented to surrender the Son of God into the hands
+of a brutal soldiery, after having himself scourged his naked body. Had
+the _wife_ of Pilate sat upon that judgment seat, what would have been
+the result of the trial of this "just person?"
+
+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 _women_! To whom did he _first_ appear after his
+resurrection? It was to a _woman_! 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, _not_ 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?"
+_Women_ were among that holy company; Acts i, 14. And did _women_ 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 _women_ as well as men?
+Yes, my friends, "it sat upon _each one of them_;" Acts ii, 3. _women_
+as well as men were to be living stones in the temple of grace, and
+therefore _their_ heads were consecrated by the descent of the Holy
+Ghost as well as those of men. Were _women_ recognized as fellow
+laborers in the gospel field? They were! Paul says in his epistle to the
+Philippians, "help those _women_ who labored with me, in the gospel;"
+Phil. iv, 3.
+
+But this is not all. Roman _women_ were burnt at the stake, _their_
+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, _women_
+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 _them_ 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
+_woman's_, as well as man's? Yes, _women_ were accounted as sheep for
+the slaughter, and were cut down as the tender saplings of the wood.
+
+But time would fail me, to tell of all those hundreds and thousands of
+_women_, 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 _Pope_," 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 _even here_, (the warm blush
+of shame mantles my cheek as I write it,) _even here, woman_ was beaten
+and banished, imprisoned, and hung upon the gallows, a trophy to the
+Cross.
+
+And what, I would ask in conclusion, have _women_ 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 _woman_, Elizabeth Heyrick.
+Who labored assiduously to keep the sufferings of the slave continually
+before the British public? They were _women_. 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.
+
+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 _never_ 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 _religious
+duty_, 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 _they_ can do for
+you, _you_ must work out your own deliverance with fear and trembling,
+and with the direction and blessing of God, _you can do it_. 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 _you_ 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.
+
+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 _you_, as the wives and mothers, the daughters
+and sisters, of the South, to a sense of your duty as _women_, 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; _and will continue
+mightily to shake it_, 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
+_slavery_; 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
+_self-evident_ truth that _all men_ were created equal, and had an
+_unalienable right to liberty_.
+
+Well may the poet exclaim in bitter sarcasm,
+
+
+  "The fustian flag that proudly waves
+  In solemn mockery _o'er a land of slaves_."
+
+
+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 _wicked laws_ which require _woman to enslave, to
+degrade and to brutalize woman?_ 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 _speak the truth_
+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 _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._" Listen, too, to her magnanimous
+reply to this powerful appeal; "_I will go_ in unto the king, which is
+not according to law, and if I perish. I perish." Yes! if there were but
+_one_ Esther at the South, she _might_ 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 _woman_ 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 _without wages;_ no longer to make their lives bitter in hard
+bondage; no longer to reduce _American citizens_ to the abject condition
+of _slaves_, of "chattels personal;" no longer to barter the _image of
+God_ in human shambles for corruptible things such as silver and gold.
+
+The _women of the South can overthrow_ 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 _will bend under moral suasion_. There is a swift witness
+for truth in his bosom, which _will respond to truth_ 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 _women_, and _they_ will be the most
+likely to introduce it there in the best possible manner, as a matter of
+_morals_ and _religion_, 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 _Christian_ ground, and fight against
+it with Christian weapons, whilst your feet are shod with the
+preparation of the gospel of peace. And _you are now_ 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.
+
+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 _now_ 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 _not_
+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 _none shall make them afraid_; for
+the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it." The _slave_ never can do
+this as long as he is a _slave_; whilst he is a "chattel personal" he
+can own _no_ property; but the time _is to come_ when _every_ man is to
+sit under _his own_ vine and _his own_ 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 _knowledge_ shall be increased."
+Slavery is an insurmountable barrier to the increase of knowledge in
+every community where it exists; _slavery, then, must be abolished
+before_ this prediction can be fulfiled. The last chord I shall touch,
+will be this, "They shall _not_ hurt nor destroy in all my holy
+mountain."
+
+_Slavery, then, must be overthrown before_ 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 _man_; it is through _his_
+instrumentality that the great and glorious work of reforming the world
+is to be done. And see you not how the mighty engine of _moral power_ 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.
+
+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,
+_not_ 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 _that putrefied body_
+into life; but "Jesus said, take _ye_ away the stone;" and when _they_
+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 _they_ ever be raised politically
+and intellectually, they have been dead four hundred years? But _we_
+have _nothing_ to do with _how_ this is to be done; _our business_ is to
+take away the stone which has covered up the dead body of our brother,
+to expose the putrid carcass, to show _how_ 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 _how_ that dead body has been
+bound, _how_ that face has been wrapped in the _napkin of prejudice_;
+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 _will_ 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.
+
+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 _you_ 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 _I_ 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 _you_ 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
+_entirely pacific_, and their efforts _only moral_, 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
+_never_ 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 _prove_ them to be false.
+Their violent expressions of horror at such accounts being believed,
+_may_ deceive some, but they cannot deceive _me_, for I lived too long
+in the midst of slavery, not to know what slavery is. When _I_ speak of
+this system, "I speak that I do know," and I am not at all afraid to
+assert, that Anti-Slavery publications have _not_ overdrawn the
+monstrous features of slavery at all. And many a Southerner _knows_ 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 _depth of
+degradation_ that word involves, they have no conception; if they had,
+_they would never cease_ their efforts until so _horrible_ 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 _every_ 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.
+
+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 _approve of slavery?_ ask them on _Northern_
+ground, where they will speak the truth, and I doubt not _every man_ of
+them will tell you, _no!_ Why then, I ask, did _they_ give their votes
+to enlarge the mouth of that grave which has already destroyed its tens
+of thousands? All our enemies tell _us_ 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 _they_ lend you their help? I will tell
+you, "they love _the praise of men more_ 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 _chief rulers_ in the days
+of our Saviour, though many believed on him, yet they did _not_ confess
+him, lest they should _be put out of the synagogue_; 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 _their hearts_; I appeal to public opinion
+ten years from now. Slavery then is a national sin.
+
+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 _their_ fortunes out of the
+_produce of slave labor_; 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 _might_ flow from
+emancipation, she is determined to resist all efforts at emancipation
+without expatriation. It is not because _she approves of slavery_, or
+believes it to be "the corner stone of our republic," for she is as much
+_anti-slavery_ as we are; but amalgamation is too horrible to think of.
+Now I would ask _you_, is it right, is it generous, to refuse the
+colored people in this country the advantages of education and the
+privilege, or rather the _right_, 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 themselves_? Oh! that _such_
+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 _as bound with them_." I will leave you to judge whether
+the fear of amalgamation ought to induce men to oppose anti-slavery
+efforts, when _they_ believe _slavery_ to be _sinful_. Prejudice against
+color, is the most powerful enemy we have to fight with at the North.
+
+You need not be surprised, then, at all, at what is said _against_
+Abolitionists by the North, for they are wielding a two-edged sword,
+which even here, cuts through the _cords of caste_, on the one side, and
+the _bonds of interest_ 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 _same_ slanders were propogated against them, which are _now_
+circulated against Abolitionists. Although it was well known that Fox
+was the founder of a religious sect which repudiated _all_ war, and
+_all_ violence, yet _even he_ 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 _they were not_ 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 _enlightened_ population _never_ can be a
+_slave_ 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
+_faithful_ testimony against the sin of slavery was cut off from
+religious fellowship with that society. That Quaker was a _woman_. 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."
+
+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
+_against_ slavery, they have for fifty-two years positively forbidden
+their members to hold slaves.
+
+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 _peace men_ by _never resisting_ 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 _slaveholders_ 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 _must_ 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.
+
+Abolitionists have been accused of abusing their Southern brethren. Did
+the prophet Isaiah _abuse_ 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 _ashamed_ of the oaks they had
+desired, and _confounded_ for the garden they had chosen? Did John the
+Baptist _abuse_ the Jews when he called them "_a generation of vipers_,"
+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 now accuse the prophets and
+apostles of _abuse_, 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?
+
+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 _gentlemen_ and _ladies_ 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 _ashamed of slavery_ even to speak of it;
+the language of their hearts was, "tell it _not_ in Gath, publish it
+_not_ 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 _realities_ no longer exist.
+
+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. _We know_ that the papers of which the
+Charleston mail was robbed, were _not_ insurrectionary, and that they
+were _not_ sent to the colored people as was reported. _We know_ that
+Amos Dresser was _no insurrectionist_ 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 _slaveholders_. 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 _truth's sake, he
+suffered_, as much as did the Apostle Paul. Are Nelson, and Garrett, and
+Williams, and other Abolitionists who have recently been banished from
+Missouri, insurrectionists? _We know_ they are _not_, whatever
+slaveholders may choose to call them. The spirit which now asperses the
+character of the Abolitionists, is the _very same_ 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.
+_False_ witnesses must appear against Abolitionists before they can be
+condemned.
+
+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? _They_ came with _carnal
+weapons_ to engage in _bloody_ 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, _not_ 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
+_Thompson_ 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 _foreign emissary_ in the Roman colony
+of Philippi, as George Thompson was in America, and it was because he
+was a _Jew_, and taught customs it was not lawful for them to receive or
+observe, being Romans, that the Apostle was thus treated.
+
+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 _Britons_ on _American Slavery_, to the _subjects_ of a
+_King_, on the abject condition of the _slaves of a Republic_. 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?
+
+What can I say more, my friends, to induce _you_ 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. _Slavery_ may produce these horrible scenes if it is
+continued five years longer, but Emancipation _never will_.
+
+I can prove the _safety_ 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
+_this time_ that all those dreadful scenes of cruelty occurred, which we
+so often _unjustly_ hear spoken of, as the effects of Abolition. They
+were occasioned _not_ by Emancipation, but by the base attempt to fasten
+the chains of slavery on the limbs of liberated slaves.
+
+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, _they preferred immediate emancipation_, 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 _safest_ and
+the best plan.
+
+And why not try it in the Southern States, if it _never_ has occasioned
+rebellion; if _not a drop of blood_ 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 _every
+thing_ from the continuance of slavery.
+
+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 _Christian women_>. 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, "_God only_ 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 _chosen the weak things of the world_, 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,
+
+Your sympathizing Friend,
+
+ANGELINA E. GRIMKÉ.
+
+Published by the American Anti-Slavery Society, corner of Spruce and
+Nassau Streets.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+VOL. I. SEPTEMBER, 1836.    No. 2.
+
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+
+
+APPEAL
+
+TO THE
+
+CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH,
+
+
+BY A.E. GRIMKÉ REVISED AND CORRECTED.
+
+
+    "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 _if I perish, I perish_."
+
+    Esther IV. 13-16.
+
+
+RESPECTED FRIENDS,
+
+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 _now_, 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.
+
+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 _no_ personal interest whatever in _me_. But I feel an interest
+in _you_, 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 _you_, 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 _do feel_ and _do pray_ 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
+_not_ 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 _truths in
+love_, and remember Solomon says, "faithful are the _wounds_ of a
+friend." I do not believe the time has yet come when _Christian women_
+"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 _you_.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+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._
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+To all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers, (for you
+are all _one_ 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 _supporters_ of the slave
+system," says Jonathan Dymond in his admirable work on the Principles of
+Morality, "will _hereafter_ be regarded with the _same_ public feeling,
+as he who was an advocate for the slave trade _now_ is." It will be, and
+that very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged by all the
+virtuous and the candid, that in _principle_ 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 _all_ men are created equal, and that they have
+certain _inalienable_ rights among which are life, _liberty_, and the
+pursuit of happiness." It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a man
+can be legally born a slave under _our free Republican_ 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 _all_ men, every where and
+of every color are born equal, and have an _inalienable right to
+liberty_, then it is equally true that _no_ man can be born a slave, and
+no man can ever _rightfully_ be reduced to _involuntary_ bondage and
+held as a slave, however fair may be the claim of his master or mistress
+through wills and title-deeds.
+
+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 _this test_ 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 _no additional_ 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
+_irrational_ beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion
+over _all of them_ is granted, yet _man_ is _never_ vested with this
+dominion _over his fellow man_; he was never told that any of the human
+species were put _under his feet_; it was only _all things_, and man,
+who was created in the image of his Maker, _never_ can properly be
+termed a _thing_, though the laws of Slave States do call him "a chattel
+personal;" _Man_ then, I assert _never_ was put _under the feet of man_,
+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.
+
+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 _not_ tell us what
+_ought to be_, 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 _not cover
+one sin_ in the awful day of account. Hear what our Saviour says on this
+subject; "it must needs be that offences come, but _woe unto that man
+through whom they come_"--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, _ye_ have taken, and by _wicked_ hands have
+crucified and slain." Other striking instances might be adduced, but
+these will suffice.
+
+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 _mine_ heir." From this it appears that one of his _servants_ 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 _his_ 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, _every_ 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 _servants_ 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 _rights of servants_ 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 _household_ 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;
+_Are you_ careful to have _all_ that are born in your house or bought
+with money of any stranger, baptized? Are _you_ as faithful as Abraham
+to command _your household_ to _keep the way of the Lord?_ I leave it to
+your own consciences to decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like
+American Slavery?
+
+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 _servitude_ 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.
+
+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 _he_ received the purchase money
+_himself_. Ex. xxi, 2.
+
+2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e., his _daughters_,
+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 _father_ received
+the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were
+in the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives, not_ as slaves. Ex. xxi,
+7-11.
+
+3. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold for
+the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.
+
+4. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.
+
+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].
+Lev. xxv, 39, 40.
+
+[Footnote 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 _not_ in the original
+Hebrew; have been introduced by the translators, and entirely destroy
+the true sense of the passage.]
+
+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 _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred,
+and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.
+
+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 _they had sold themselves_ in the dark hour of adversity? No! Were
+they born in slavery? No! No! Not according to _Jewish Law_, for the
+servants who were born in servitude among them, were born of parents who
+had _sold themselves_: 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, _their_ fathers
+_never_ have received the poor compensation of silver or gold for the
+tears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless bondage of
+_their_ 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 _fathers of the South ever sell their
+daughters?_ My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the awful
+affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell their
+daughters, _not_ 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 _not_ become slaves in any of the six different ways in which
+Hebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters
+_cannot_ according to _Jewish law_ substantiate their claim to the men,
+women, or children they now hold in bondage.
+
+But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced to
+servitude; it was this, he might be _stolen_ 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 _that thief shall die_; and thou shalt put away evil
+from among you." Deut. xxiv, 7. As I have tried American Slavery by
+_legal_ Hebrew servitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that
+Jewish law cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by
+_illegal_ 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 _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 _to Hebrew Law they
+have been stolen._
+
+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.
+
+Bondmen and bondmaids might be bought of the heathen round about them.
+Lev. xxv, 44.
+
+I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of Hebrew
+masters to their _heathen_ servants. Were the southern slaves bought
+from the heathen? No! For surely, no one will _now_ 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 _not_ 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?
+
+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 _both_ were 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:
+
+1. Thou shalt _not_ rule over him with _rigor_, but shalt fear thy God.
+
+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 _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, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv, 13, 14.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _for ever_. Ex. xxi, 5, 6.
+
+6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that
+it perish, he shall let him go _free_ 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 _free_ for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.
+
+7. On the Sabbath, rest was secured to servants by the fourth
+commandment. Ex. xx, 10.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+From these laws we learn, that one class of Hebrew men servants were
+bound to serve their masters _only six_ 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 _there_ his ear was
+_publicly_ 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: _for ever_, i.e., during his life, for Jewish
+Rabbins, who must have understood Jewish _slavery_ (as it is called),
+"affirm that servants were set free at the death of their masters, and
+did _not_ descend to their heirs;" or that he was to serve him until the
+year of Jubilee, when _all_ 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 _free_, 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."
+
+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
+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 _freemen_ 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 _he_ 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 _his own_, and therefore he was to be remunerated
+for the loss of it. But _not_ so with the _servant_, whose time was, as
+it were, _the money of his master_, 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 _not_ to be
+paid for, because it was _not his own_, but his master's, who had
+already paid him for it. The loss of his time was the _master's loss_,
+and _not_ the servant's. This explanation is confirmed by the fact, that
+the Hebrew word translated continue, means "to stand still;" _i.e._, to
+be unable to go out about his master's work.
+
+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 _died_ after a day or two; the text
+does not say so, and I contend that he _got well_ 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 _four_ different
+ways.--(_Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws_.)
+
+But I pass on now to the consideration of how the _female_ Jewish
+servants were protected by _law_.
+
+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.
+
+2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after
+the manner of daughters.
+
+3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of
+marriage, shall he not diminish.
+
+4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out _free_
+without money.
+
+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 _always_ 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 _go out free_ without money."
+Thus were the _rights of female servants carefully secured by law_ under
+the Jewish Dispensation; and now I would ask, are the rights of female
+slaves at the South thus secured? Are _they_ sold only as wives and
+daughters-in-law, and when not treated as such, are they allowed to _go
+out free?_ No! They have _all_ not only been illegally obtained as
+servants according to Hebrew law, but they are also illegally _held_ in
+bondage. Masters at the South and West have all forfeited their claims,
+(_if they ever had any,_) to their female slaves.
+
+We come now to examine the case of those servants who were "of the
+heathen round about;" Were _they_ 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 _alien
+born_ slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew Church by circumcision,
+_there is no doubt_ but that it applied to _all_ 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.
+
+There are, however, two other laws which I have not yet noticed. The one
+effectually prevented _all involuntary_ servitude, and the other
+completely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were
+equally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew.
+
+1. "Thou shalt _not_ 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 _not_ oppress him." Deut. xxiii, 15, 16.
+
+2. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim _Liberty_
+throughout _all_ the land, unto _all_ the inhabitants thereof; it shall
+be a jubilee unto you." Lev. xxv, 10.
+
+Here, then, we see that by this first law, the _door of Freedom was
+opened wide to every servant who_ had any cause whatever for complaint;
+if he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him,
+and _no man_ had a right to deliver him back to him again, and not only
+so, but the absconded servant was to _choose_ 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 _by law_ 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 _human_ law, under the _Christian
+Dispensation_, in the _nineteenth century we_ are commanded to do, what
+_God_ more than _three thousand_ years ago, under the _Mosaic
+Dispensation_, _positively commanded_ the Jews _not_ to do. In the wide
+domain even of our free states, there is not _one_ 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 _man_, by the strong
+arm of the law; no! _not one_. 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, _consenting_ unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the
+raiment of them that slew him. I know not; but one thing I do know, the
+_guilt of the North_ 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, "_Who_ hath required _this_ at thy hand?" It will be found _no_
+excuse then that the Constitution of our country required that _persons
+bound to service_ escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no
+more excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the
+forbidden fruit. _He was condemned and punished because_ he hearkened to
+the voice of _his wife_, rather than to the command of his Maker; and
+_we_ shall assuredly be condemned and punished for obeying _Man_ rather
+than _God_, if we do not speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for
+repentance. Yea, are we not receiving chastisement even _now_?
+
+But by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is
+disclosed. If the first effectually prevented _all involuntary
+servitude_, the last absolutely forbade even _voluntary servitude being
+perpetual_. On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the
+Jubilee trumpet was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and _Liberty_
+was proclaimed to _all_ the inhabitants thereof. I will not say that the
+servants' _chains_ fell off and their _manacles_ were burst, for there
+is no evidence that Jewish servants _ever_ 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 _heathen_ 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 _perpetual servitude_ existing among
+them.
+
+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
+_slavery_ when speaking of Jewish servitude; and simply for this reason,
+that _no such thing_ existed among that people; the word translated
+servant does _not_ mean _slave_, it is the same that is applied to
+Abraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets generally. _Slavery_ then
+_never_ 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 "_God sanctioned, yea commanded
+slavery_ 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 _ever_ sanctioned such a system
+of cruelty and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him.
+
+We have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard to
+servants was designed to _protect them_ as _men and women_, to secure to
+them their _rights_ as _human beings_, 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.
+
+1. _Slavery_ is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the
+slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest
+posterity.
+
+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].
+
+[Footnote 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, _one quart_ of
+corn per day, or _one peck_ per week, or _one bushel_ 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 _always_ be
+defeated." ED.]
+
+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.
+
+4. Slaves can make no contracts and have no _legal_ right to any
+property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings and the legacies
+of friends belong in point of law to their masters.
+
+5. Neither a slave nor a free colored person can be a witness against
+any _white_, 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 _slave_; but they may give testimony
+_against a fellow slave_, or free colored man, even in cases affecting
+life, if the _master_ is to reap the advantage of it.
+
+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.
+
+7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under _any_
+circumstances, _his_ only safety consists in the fact that his _owner_
+may bring suit and recover the price of his body, in case his life is
+taken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor.
+
+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.
+
+9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations.
+
+10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the
+master is willing to enfranchise them.
+
+11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious
+instruction and consolation.
+
+12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of
+the lowest ignorance.
+
+13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right.
+What is a trifling fault in the _white_ man, is considered highly
+criminal in the _slave_; the same offences which cost a white man a few
+dollars only, are punished in the negro with death.
+
+14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color[A].
+
+[Footnote A: See Mrs. Child's Appeal, Chap. II.]
+
+Shall I ask you now my friends, to draw the _parallel_ between Jewish
+_servitude_ and American _slavery_? No! For there is _no likeness_ in
+the two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The laws of
+Moses _protected servants_ in their _rights_ as _men and women_, guarded
+them from oppression and defended them from wrong. The Code Noir of the
+South _robs the slave of all his rights_ as a _man_, reduces him to a
+chattel personal, and defends the _master_ 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
+_thing_ before we can claim the right to set our feet upon his neck,
+because it was only _all things_ which were originally _put under the
+feet of man_ by the Almighty and Beneficent Father of all, who has
+declared himself to be _no respecter_ of persons, whether red, white or
+black.
+
+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 _slavery_, if that had existed
+among them. But did not Jesus condemn slavery? Let us examine some of
+his precepts. "_Whatsoever_ ye would that men should do to you, do _ye
+even so to them_." Let every slaveholder apply these queries to his own
+heart; Am _I_ willing to be a slave--Am _I_ willing to see my wife the
+slave of another--Am _I_ 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 _not_ wish to be done to me or any relative I have;
+and thus have I broken this golden rule which was given _me_ to walk by.
+
+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 _my little
+child_ to slavery? You know that _if it is brought up a slave_ 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--_not by
+nature_--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 "_God never made a slave_," he
+made man upright; his back was _not_ made to carry burdens, nor his neck
+to wear a yoke, and the _man_ must be crushed within him, before _his_
+back can be _fitted_ to the burden of perpetual slavery; and that his
+back is _not_ 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 _they_ were all placed _under the feet of man_, 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 _not so with man_, intellectual, immortal man!
+I appeal to you, my friends, as mothers; Are you willing to enslave
+_your_ children? You start back with horror and indignation at such a
+question. But why, if slavery is _no wrong_ 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 _wanting_? Try yourselves by another of the Divine
+precepts, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Can we love a man
+_as_ we love _ourselves 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 _not_ to be ministered unto, but to
+minister." Can you for a moment imagine the meek and lowly, and
+compassionate Saviour, _a slaveholder_? Do you not shudder at this
+thought as much as at that of his being _a warrior_? But why, if slavery
+is not sinful?
+
+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 _bound to protect_ the runaway; _he had no
+right_ 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, _not_ now as a
+_servant_, but _above_ 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 _me_ therefore as a partner, _receive him as myself_." 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
+_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. And what is
+still more surprising, if he was a _slave_, is, that "forasmuch as he
+had not to pay, his lord commanded _him_ 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 _slave_ and his family to pay himself a debt due
+to him from a _slave_? What would he gain by it when the slave is
+himself his _property_, and his wife and children also? Onesimus could
+not, then, have been a _slave_, 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 _nothing from a servant_, though he be
+lord of all. But is under _tutors_ and governors until the time
+appointed of the father." From this it appears, that the means of
+_instruction_ were provided for _servants_ 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 _your
+slaves_? are their minds enlightened, and they gradually prepared to
+rise from the grade of menials into that of _free_, independent members
+of the state? Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience,
+answer these questions.
+
+If this apostle sanctioned _slavery_, 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) _forbearing threatening_; knowing that your master also is in
+heaven, neither is _there respect of persons with him_." And in
+Colossians, "Masters give unto your servants that which is _just and
+equal_, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." Let slaveholders
+only _obey_ these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery would
+soon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to _threaten_ 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, "_no striker_." Let
+masters give unto their servants that which is _just_ and _equal_, and
+all that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. Yes,
+and if they once felt they had no right to the _labor_ 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 "_menstealers_," which word may be translated
+"_slavedealers_." 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
+_gentlemen of fortune and standing_ who employ them as _their_ agents?
+Why more than the _professors of religion_ 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 _principle_, in _Christian ethics_, between the
+despised slavedealer and the _Christian_ 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 _slavedealers_. It is then the
+_Christians_ and the _honorable men_ and _women_ of the South, who are
+the _main pillars_ of this grand temple built to Mammon and to Moloch.
+It is the _most enlightened_, in every country who are _most_ to blame
+when any public sin is supported by public opinion, hence Isaiah says,
+"_When_ the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount _Zion_ and on
+_Jerusalem_, (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 _after_ Judah's,
+and 185 years, _after_ Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by
+Cyrus, king of Persia? Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, "judgment
+must _begin at the house of God_." Surely this would not be the case, if
+the _professors of religion_ were not _most worthy_ of blame.
+
+But it may be asked, why are _they_ 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, "_You only_ have I known of all the families of the earth:
+_therefore_ I will punish _you_ for all your iniquities." Hear too the
+doctrine of our Lord on this important subject: "The servant who _knew_
+his Lord's will and _prepared not_ himself, neither did according to his
+will, shall be beaten with _many stripes_:" and why? "For unto
+whomsoever _much_ is given, _of him_ shall _much_ be required; and to
+whom men have committed _much_, of _him_ they will ask the _more_." Oh!
+then that the _Christians_ of the south would ponder these things in
+their hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which rest _upon
+them_ at this important crisis.
+
+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 _no_ excuse whatever to
+slaveholders. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal
+dispensation. Fifth, that _slavery never_ existed under the Jewish
+dispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed under
+the _protection of law_, and care taken not only to prevent all
+_involuntary_ servitude, but all _voluntary perpetual_ bondage. Sixth,
+that slavery in America reduces a _man_ to a _thing_, a "chattel
+personal," _robs him_ of _all_ his rights as a _human being_, fetters
+both his mind and body, and protects the _master_ in the most unnatural
+and unreasonable power, whilst it _throws him out_ 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.
+
+But perhaps you will be ready to query, why appeal to _women_ on this
+subject? _We_ do not make the laws which perpetuate slavery. _No_
+legislative power is vested in _us; we_ 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 _you are the wives and mothers, the
+sisters and daughters of those who do_; and if you really suppose _you_
+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."
+
+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 _Bible_ 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. _"Oh! 'tis all one,"_ he replied, and out went
+the sacred volume, along with the rest. We thank him for the
+acknowledgment. _Yes, "it is all one,"_ for our books and papers are
+mostly commentaries on the Bible, and the Declaration. Read the _Bible_
+then; it contains the words of Jesus, and they are spirit and life.
+Judge for yourselves whether _he sanctioned_ such a system of oppression
+and crime.
+
+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 _sinful_, 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, _"What is that
+to thee, follow thou me."_ 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.
+
+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 _sinful_, 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 _less_ culpable on this account, even when they do wrong
+things. Discountenance _all_ cruelty to them, all starvation, all
+corporal chastisement; these may brutalize and _break_ their spirits,
+but will never bend them to willing, cheerful obedience. If possible,
+see that they are comfortably and _seasonably_ 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
+_slavery is a crime against God and man_, and that it is a great sin to
+keep _human beings_ 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, _slaveholders must not_
+blame them, for _they_ are doing the _very same thing_, 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.
+
+
+  "Will _you_ behold unheeding,
+    Life's holiest feelings crushed,
+  Where _woman's_ heart is bleeding,
+    Shall _woman's_ voice be hushed?"
+
+
+4. Act on this subject. Some of you _own_ slaves yourselves. If you
+believe slavery is _sinful_, 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 _ought to be improved_. So precious a
+talent as intellect, never was given to be wrapt in a napkin and buried
+in the earth. It is the _duty_ of all, as far as they can, to improve
+their own mental faculties, because we are commanded to love God with
+_all our minds_, as well as with all our hearts, and we commit a great
+sin, if we _forbid or prevent_ 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 _duty_ to learn,
+if it were only that they might read the Bible.
+
+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 _ought to be no barrier_ 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? "_They_ feared _God_, and did _not_
+as the King of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive."
+And be it remembered, that it was through _their_ faithfulness that
+Moses was preserved. This great and immediate emancipator was indebted
+to a _woman_ for his spared life, and he became a blessing to the whole
+Jewish nation. Did these _women_ do right in disobeying that monarch?
+"_Therefore_ (says the sacred text,) _God dealt well_ 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 _Jews_) O
+king, that _we will not_ serve thy gods, nor worship the image which
+thou hast set up." Did these men _do right in disobeying the law_ 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 _knew
+that the writing was signed_, he went into his house, and his windows
+being _open_ 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 _break_ 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,
+"_commanded them not_ 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 _resurrection_ of the Lord Jesus;" although
+_this_ 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 _you_ to answer, who now enjoy the benefits of their labors and
+sufferings, in that Gospel they dared to preach when positively
+commanded _not to teach any more_ in the name of Jesus; Acts iv.
+
+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. _Consequences_, my friends, belong no more to
+_you_, than they did to these apostles. Duty is ours and events are
+God's. If you think slavery is sinful, all _you_ 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 _manstealing_. Such an act will be
+_clear robbery_, 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."
+
+I know that this doctrine of obeying _God_, 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 _sin_. 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 _sin I will break it_; if it calls me to _suffer_, I will
+let it take its course _unresistingly_. The doctrine of blind obedience
+and unqualified submission to _any human_ power, whether civil or
+ecclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism, and ought to have no place
+among Republicans and Christians.
+
+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 _not_ excuse you or any one else for the neglect of
+_duty_. 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 _laws of our country or public opinion are
+against us_, 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 _speak the truth_; to tell the Jews, boldly and fearlessly,
+that _they_ were the _murderers_ 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 _speak_ the _truth_, to _break_ the unrighteous _laws_ 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 _done_ good and
+faithful servants, enter ye into the joy of your Lord."
+
+But you may say we are _women_, how can _our_ hearts endure persecution?
+And why not? Have not _women_ 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 _women_ 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 _woman_; 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 _woman_! 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 _woman_. Jael the
+wife of Heber! Judges vi, 21. Who dared to _speak the truth_ 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 _woman_. 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 _woman_; Esther
+the Queen; yes, weak and trembling _woman_ was the instrument appointed
+by God, to reverse the bloody mandate of the eastern monarch, and save
+the _whole visible church_ from destruction. What human voice first
+proclaimed to Mary that she should be the mother of our Lord? It was a
+_woman_! 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 _woman_!
+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
+_woman_! Who ministered to the Son of God whilst on earth, a despised
+and persecuted Reformer, in the humble garb of a carpenter? They were
+_women_! Who followed the rejected King of Israel, as his fainting
+footsteps trod the road to Calvary? "A great company of people and of
+_women_;" and it is remarkable that to _them alone_, 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 _woman_! the
+wife of Pilate. Although "_he knew_ that for envy the Jews had delivered
+Christ," yet _he_ consented to surrender the Son of God into the hands
+of a brutal soldiery, after having himself scourged his naked body. Had
+the _wife_ of Pilate sat upon that judgment seat, what would have been
+the result of the trial of this "just person?"
+
+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 _women_! To whom did he _first_ appear after his
+resurrection? It was to a _woman_! 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, _not_ 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?"
+_Women_ were among that holy company; Acts i, 14. And did _women_ 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 _women_ as well as men?
+Yes, my friends, "it sat upon _each one of them_;" Acts ii, 3. _Women_
+as well as men were to be living stones in the temple of grace, and
+therefore _their_ heads were consecrated by the descent of the Holy
+Ghost as well as those of men. Were _women_ recognized as fellow
+laborers in the gospel field? They were! Paul says in his epistle to the
+Philippians, "help those _women_ who labored with me, in the gospel;"
+Phil. iv, 3.
+
+But this is not all. Roman _women_ were burnt at the stake, _their_
+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, _women_
+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 _them_ 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
+_woman's_, as well as man's? Yes, _women_ were accounted as sheep for
+the slaughter, and were cut down as the tender saplings of the wood.
+
+But time would fail me, to tell of all those hundreds and thousands of
+_women_, 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 _Pope_," 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 _even here_, (the warm blush
+of shame mantles my cheek as I write it,) _even here, woman_ was beaten
+and banished, imprisoned, and hung upon the gallows, a trophy to the
+Cross. And what, I would ask in conclusion, have _women_ 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 _woman_, Elizabeth
+Heyrick. Who labored assiduously to keep the sufferings of the slave
+continually before the British public? They were _women_. 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.
+
+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 _never_ 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 _religious
+duty_, 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 _they_ can do for
+you, _you_ must work out your own deliverance with fear and trembling,
+and with the direction and blessing of God, _you can do it_. 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 _you_ 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.
+
+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 _you_, as the wives and mothers, the daughters
+and sisters, of the South, to a sense of your duty as _women_, 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; _and will continue
+mightily to shake it_, 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
+_slavery_; 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
+_self-evident_ truth that _all men_ were created equal, and had an
+_unalienable right to liberty_.
+
+Well may the poet exclaim in bitter sarcasm,
+
+
+  "The fustian flag that proudly waves
+  In solemn mockery o'er _a land of slaves_."
+
+
+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 _wicked laws_ which require _woman to enslave, to
+degrade and to brutalize woman_? 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 _speak the truth_
+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 _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_." Listen, too, to her magnanimous
+reply to this powerful appeal; "_I will_ go in unto the king, which is
+_not_ according to law, and if I perish, I perish." Yes! if there were
+but _one_ Esther at the South, she _might_ 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 _woman_ 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 _without wages_; no longer to make their lives bitter in hard
+bondage; no longer to reduce _American citizens_ to the abject condition
+of _slaves_, of "chattels personal;" no longer to barter the _image of
+God_ in human shambles for corruptible things such as silver and gold.
+
+The _women of the South can overthrow_ 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 _will bend under moral suasion_. There is a swift witness
+for truth in his bosom, which _will respond to truth_ 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 _women_, and _they_ will be the most
+likely to introduce it there in the best possible manner, as a matter of
+_morals_ and _religion_, 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 _Christian_ ground, and fight against
+it with Christian weapons, whilst your feet are shod with the
+preparation of the gospel of peace. And _you are now_ 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."
+
+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 _now_ 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 _not_
+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 _none shall make them afraid_; for
+the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it." The _slave_ never can do
+this as long as he is a _slave_; whilst he is a "chattel personal" he
+can own _no_ property; but the time _is to come_ when _every_ man is to
+sit under _his own_ vine and _his own_ 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 _knowledge_ shall be increased."
+Slavery is an insurmountable barrier to the increase of knowledge in
+every community where it exists; _slavery, then, must be abolished
+before_ this prediction can be fulfilled. The last chord I shall touch,
+will be this, "They shall _not_ hurt nor destroy in all my holy
+mountain."
+
+_Slavery, then, must be overthrown before_ 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 _woman_; it is through _their_
+instrumentality that the great and glorious work of reforming the world
+is to be done. And see you not how the mighty engine of _moral power_ 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.
+
+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,
+_not_ 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 _that putrified body_
+into life; but "Jesus said, take _ye_ away the stone;" and when _they_
+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 _they_ ever be raised politically
+and intellectually, they have been dead four hundred years? But _we_
+have _nothing_ to do with _how_ this is to be done; _our business_ is to
+take away the stone which has covered up the dead body of our brother,
+to expose the putrid carcass, to show _how_ 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 _how_ that dead body has been
+bound, _how_ that face has been wrapped in the _napkin of prejudice_;
+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 _will_ 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.
+
+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 _you_ 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 _I_ 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 _you_ 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
+_entirely pacific,_ and their efforts _only moral,_ 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
+_never_ 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 _prove_ them to be false.
+Their violent expressions of horror at such accounts being believed,
+_may_ deceive some, but they cannot deceive _me,_ 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 _I_ speak of this system, "I speak that I do know," and I
+am not afraid to assert, that Anti-Slavery publications have _not_
+overdrawn the monstrous features of slavery at all. And many a
+Southerner _knows_ 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 _depth of degradation_ that word involves, they have no
+conception; if they had, _they would never cease_ their efforts until so
+_horrible_ 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 _every_ 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.
+
+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 _approve of slavery?_ ask them on
+_Northern_ ground, where they will speak the truth, and I doubt not
+_every man_ of them will tell you, _no_! Why then, I ask, did _they_
+give their votes to enlarge the mouth of that grave which has already
+destroyed its tens of thousands! All our enemies tell _us_ 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 _they_ lend you their
+help? I will tell you, "they love _the praise of men more_ 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 _chief
+rulers_ in the days of our Saviour, though _many_ believed on him, yet
+they did _not_ confess him, lest they should _be put out of the
+synagogue_; 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 _their hearts_; I appeal to public opinion ten years from now.
+Slavery then is a national sin.
+
+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 _their_ fortunes out of the
+_produce of slave labor_; 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 _might_ flow from
+emancipation, she is determined to resist all efforts at emancipation
+without expatriation. It is not because she _approves of slavery_, or
+believes it to be "the corner stone of our republic," for she is as much
+_anti-slavery_ as we are; but amalgamation is too horrible to think of.
+Now I would ask _you_, is it right, is it generous, to refuse the
+colored people in this country the advantages of education and the
+privilege, or rather the _right_, 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 _themselves_? Oh! that _such_
+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 _as bound with them_." I will leave you to judge whether
+the fear of amalgamation ought to induce men to oppose anti-slavery
+efforts, when _they_ believe _slavery_ to be _sinful_. Prejudice against
+color, is the most powerful enemy we have to fight with at the North.
+
+You need not be surprised, then, at all, at what is said _against_
+Abolitionists by the North, for they are wielding a two-edged sword,
+which even here, cuts through the _cords of caste_, on the one side, and
+the _bonds of interest_ 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 _same_ slanders were propogated against them, which are _now_
+circulated against Abolitionists. Although it was well known that Fox
+was the founder of a religious sect which repudiated _all_ war, and
+_all_ violence, yet _even he_ 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 _they were not_ 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 _enlightened_ population _never_ can be a
+_slave_ 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
+_faithful_ testimony against the sin of slavery was cut off from
+religious fellowship with that society. That Quaker was a _woman_. 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."
+
+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
+_against_ slavery, they have for sixty-two years positively forbidden
+their members to hold slaves.
+
+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 _peace men_ by _never resisting_ 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 _slaveholders_ 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 _must_ 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.
+
+Abolitionists have been accused of abusing their Southern brethren. Did
+the prophet Isaiah _abuse_ 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 _ashamed_ of the oaks they had
+desired, and _confounded_ for the garden they had chosen? Did John the
+Baptist _abuse_ the Jews when he called them "_a generation of vipers_,"
+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 _now_ accuse the prophets and
+apostles of _abuse_, 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?
+
+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 _gentlemen_ and _ladies_ 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 _ashamed of slavery_ even to speak of it;
+the language of their hearts was, "tell it _not_ in Gath, publish it
+_not_ 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 _realities_ no longer exist.
+
+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. _We know_ that the papers of which the
+Charleston mail was robbed, were _not_ insurrectionary, and that they
+were _not_ sent to the colored people as was reported. _We know_ that
+Amos Dresser was _no insurrectionist_ 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 _slaveholders_. 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 _truth's sake, he
+suffered_, as much as did the Apostle Paul. Are Nelson, and Garrett, and
+Williams, and other Abolitionists who have recently been banished from
+Missouri, insurrectionists? _We know_ they are _not_, whatever
+slaveholders may choose to call them. The spirit which now asperses the
+character of the Abolitionists, is the _very same_ 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.
+_False_ witnesses must appear against Abolitionists before they can be
+condemned.
+
+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? _They_
+came with _carnal weapons_ to engage in _bloody_ 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, _not_ 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 _Thompson_ 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 _foreign emissary_ in the Roman colony
+of Philippi, as George Thompson was in America, and it was because he
+was a _Jew_, and taught customs it was not lawful for them to receive or
+observe being Romans, that the Apostle was thus treated.
+
+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 _Britons_ on _American Slavery_, to the _subjects_ of a
+_King_, on the abject condition of the _slaves of a Republic_. 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?
+
+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. _Slavery_ may produce these horrible scenes if it is
+continued five years longer, but Emancipation _never will_.
+
+I can prove the _safety_ 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
+_this time_ that all those dreadful scenes of cruelty occurred, which we
+so often _unjustly_ hear spoken of, as the effects of Abolition. They
+were occasioned _not_ by Emancipation, but by the base attempt to fasten
+the chains of slavery on the limbs of liberated slaves.
+
+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, _they preferred immediate emancipation_, 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 _safest_ and
+the best plan.
+
+And why not try it in the Southern States, if it _never_ has occasioned
+rebellion; if _not a drop of blood_ 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 _every
+thing_ from the continuance of slavery.
+
+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 _Christian women_. 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, "_God only_ 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 _chosen the weak things of the world_, 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,
+
+
+
+Your sympathizing Friend,
+
+ANGELINA E. GRIMKÉ.
+
+Shrewsbury, N.J., 1836.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+
+THIRD EDITION.
+
+Price 6 1-4 cents single, 62 1-2 cents per dozen, $4 per hundred.
+
+
+No. 3.
+
+
+THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+LETTER OF GERRIT SMITH
+
+TO
+
+REV. JAMES SMYLIE,
+
+OF THE
+
+STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.
+
+
+1837.
+
+LETTER, ETC.
+
+PETERBORO', October 28, 1836.
+
+
+Rev. JAMES SMYLIE,
+
+_Late Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Mississippi:_
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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!
+
+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.
+
+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 _property_, 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, _to all
+intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever_."
+
+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]. 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 _nature_ 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.
+
+[Footnote 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, _in any way_, 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 _mere things_--how unreasonable, I say, is it to suppose, that
+they would consent to put a _man_ to death, on account of his treatment,
+in whatever way, of a _mere thing_? 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 _man_ should be put to death, for the liberty he had
+taken in disposing of a _thing_. They had rather perjure themselves,
+than by avenging the blood of a _slave_ with that of a _man_, make a
+breach upon the policy of keeping the slave ignorant, that he has the
+_nature_, and consequently the _rights_, of a man.]
+
+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.
+
+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!
+
+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.
+
+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!"
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?
+
+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 _beau ideal_ 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]. 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.
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+1st. Is not Southern slavery guilty of a most heaven-daring crime, in
+substituting concubinage for God's institution of marriage?
+
+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[B]--but it dies as surely, when you prune it of its manifold
+incidents of pollution and irreligion.
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _property_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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]. 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.
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+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.
+
+For the sake of the argument, I will admit, that the Apostles made no
+specific attack on slavery[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.
+
+[Footnote 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.
+
+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,
+
+  "He that is robb'd------
+  Let him not know it, and he's not robbed at all."
+
+
+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. ]
+
+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[B]. 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
+
+[Footnote B: 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." _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._]
+
+  "------to fan him while he sleeps,
+  And tremble when he wakes."
+
+
+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 _thing_. It occurs to me,
+that if a shrewd lawyer had you on trial for theft, he would say, that
+you were _estopped_ from going into this distinction between a _man_ and
+a _thing_, inasmuch as, by your own laws, the slave is expressly
+declared to be a _chattel_--is expressly _elevated_ into a _thing_. He
+would say, however competent it may be for others to justify themselves
+on the ground, that it was but a _man_, and not a _thing_, 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 _thing_, instead of _a
+mere man_.
+
+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?
+
+2d. I go on to account for the Apostles' omission to specify slavery.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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!
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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], 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.
+
+[Footnote 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 _abolitionized_ 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.]
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+1st. You find passages in the New Testament, where you think _despotes_
+refers to a person who is a slaveholder, and _doulos_ 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 _despotes_ means "God"--Jesus Christ"--Head of a
+family:" and where _doulos_ means "a minister or agent"--a subject of a
+king"--a disciple or follower of Christ." _Despotes_ and _doulos_ are
+the words used in the original of the expression: "Lord, now lettest
+thou thy servant depart in peace:" _doulos_ 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 _doulos_ in
+a, generic, as well as in a special sense. _Doulos_ and _doule_ 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
+_doulos_ and _doule_; 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 _doulos_ and
+_doule_ to a species of servants, the prophecy would have reference to
+persons of all ages, classes, and conditions--_excepting certain
+descriptions of servants_. Under this interpretation, we are brought to
+the absurd conclusion, that the spirit is to be poured out upon the
+master and his slaves--_but not upon his hired servants_.
+
+I trust that enough has been said, under this my first head, to show
+that the various senses in which the words _despotes_ and _doulos_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _part of the servants_. May we not reasonably complain
+of your interpretation, that it violates analogy?
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+I need not extend my remarks to prove, that _despotes_ and _doulos_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _abuses_ 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 _abuses_, (if indeed we may speak of the abuses of what is in itself
+an _abuse_,) sinless? I am aware, that Prof. Hodge says, that it was so:
+and, when he classes despotism and slavery with _adiaphora_, "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 _nature_ of civil government
+is an indifferent thing: and that the poet was right when he said,
+
+  "For forms of government let _fools_ contest?"
+
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _abuses_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+1st. My strongest reason is, that the great and comprehensive
+principles, and the whole genius and spirit of Christianity, are opposed
+to slavery.
+
+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.
+
+We learn from the Bible, that it was not because of the _abuses_ 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
+_abuses_ 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.
+
+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."
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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!
+
+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 _abuses_ 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.
+
+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 _to yield to them
+on every occasion_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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 _to work well_--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.
+
+Having disposed of your "strong reasons" for the position, that the New
+Testament authorizes slavery, I proceed to consider your remaining
+reasons for it.
+
+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 _any_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?"
+
+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 _legally_ 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.
+
+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 _long_ "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 _long_ "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 _slave_, but above a
+_slave_--a brother beloved."
+
+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.
+
+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 _slave_, but
+above a _slave_, 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.
+
+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 _relation_ 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 _not only_ 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!
+
+"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 _pride_ and _selfishness_, not of
+_principle_."
+
+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.
+
+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?
+
+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!
+
+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
+_immediate_ abandonment of sin."
+
+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 "_the_ 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 "_the_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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, _be_ 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."
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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
+_chattelizing_ 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 _thing_ 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
+_man_ and not a _thing_--a responsible, and not an irresponsible being,
+that he must continue in his present trials and sufferings.
+
+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.
+
+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
+
+  --"bear those ills we have,
+  Than fly to others that we know not of."
+
+
+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 _outlaw_ 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.
+
+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. _Then_, 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 _for ever_ to a servitude more severe than that, from which
+he had escaped. Indeed, if a _freeman_ 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.
+
+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 _property_ 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.
+
+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 _surely_ to be punished with death; whilst mere
+property was allowed to atone for the offence of stealing property.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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 _doulos_
+and _doule_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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--_only they think it
+inexpedient to say so_. 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."
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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
+
+
+
+Your friend,
+
+GERRIT SMITH.
+
+
+
+
+
+No. 4
+
+
+
+THE
+
+ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+
+THE
+
+BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+
+
+AN INQUIRY
+
+INTO THE
+
+PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS
+
+ON THE SUBJECT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
+
+
+NEW-YORK:
+
+PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
+
+NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.
+
+
+1837.
+
+POSTAGE--This periodical contains five and a half sheets. Postage under
+100 miles, 8-1/2 cts over 100 miles, 14 cents.
+
+_Please read and circulate._
+
+PIERCY & REED. PRINTERS,
+
+7 Theatre Alley.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+    Definition of Slavery
+
+    Man-stealing--Examination of Ex. xxi. 16
+
+    Import of "Bought with money," etc.
+
+    Rights and privileges of servants
+
+    No involuntary servitude under the Mosaic system
+
+    Servants were paid wages
+
+    Masters, not owners
+
+    Servants distinguished from property
+
+    Social equality of servants with their masters
+
+    Condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrew
+    Commonwealth
+
+    Egyptian bondage analyzed
+
+    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+    "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be," etc. Gen.
+    ix. 25
+
+    "For he is his money," Examination of, Ex. xxi. 20, 21
+
+    "Bondmen and bondmaids" bought of the heathen. Lev. xxv. 44-46
+
+    "They shall be your bondmen forever." Lev. xxv. 46
+
+    "Ye shall take them as an inheritance," etc. Lev. xxv. 46
+
+    The Israelite to serve as a hired servant. Lev. xxv. 39, 40
+
+    Difference between bought and hired servants
+
+    Bought servants the most privileged class
+
+    Summary of the different classes of servants
+
+    Disabilities of the servants from the heathen
+
+    Examination of Exodus xxi. 2-6
+
+    The Canaanites not sentenced to unconditional extermination
+
+
+
+
+
+
+INQUIRY, &c.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+The spirit of slavery never takes refuge in the Bible _of its own
+accord._ 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.
+
+
+DEFINITION OF SLAVERY.
+
+If we would know whether the Bible is the charter of slavery, we must
+first determine _just what slavery is_. 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 _other_ things, of which there are relations and appendages.
+To regard them as _the things_ 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.
+
+1. _Privation of the right of suffrage_. Then _minors_ are slaves.
+
+2. _Ineligibility to office_. Then _females_ are slaves.
+
+3. _Taxation without representation_. Then three-fourths of the people
+of Rhode Island are slaves, and _all_ in the District of Columbia.
+
+4. _Privation of one's oath in law_. Then the _free_ colored people of
+Ohio are slaves. So are disbelievers in a future retribution, generally.
+
+5. _Privation of trial by jury_. Then all in France and Germany are
+slaves.
+
+6. _Being required to support a particular religion_. Then the people of
+England are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all other
+disabilities, merely political.]
+
+7. _Cruelty and oppression_. Wives are often cruelly treated; hired
+domestics are often oppressed; but these forms of oppression are not
+slavery.
+
+8. _Apprenticeship_. The rights and duties of master and apprentice are
+correlative and reciprocal. The _claim_ of each upon the other results
+from the _obligation_ 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 _just_
+to the master, it is _benevolent_ to the apprentice. Its main design is
+rather to benefit the apprentice than the master. It _promotes_ 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 _right_ 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 _equally_ 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?
+
+9. _Filial subordination and parental claims_. Both are nature's
+dictates, and indispensable to the existence of the social state; their
+_design_ the promotion of mutual welfare; and the _means_, 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 _whole_, 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.
+
+10. _Bondage for crime, or governmental claims on criminals._ 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?_ 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 _chattel_. Test it. To own property is to own its
+product. Are children born of convicts government property? Besides, can
+_property_ be _guilty_? Are _chattels_ punished?
+
+11. _Restrictions upon freedom._ 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, _the climax of slavery_, and its executive a king
+among slaveholders.
+
+12. _Involuntary or compulsory service_. A juryman is empannelled
+_against his will_, and sit he _must_. A sheriff orders his posse;
+bystanders _must_ turn in. Men are _compelled_ 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 _condition_. The slave's _feelings_ toward it, are one thing; the
+condition itself, the object of these feelings, is _another_ thing; his
+feelings cannot alter the nature of that condition. Whether he _desire_
+or _detest_ it, the _condition_ remains the same. The slave's
+_willingness_ 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 _make_ him a chattel,
+or make those guiltless who _hold_ 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 _consent_ 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 _voluntariness_, so far from _lessening_ the guilt of the "owner,"
+_aggravates_ it. If slavery has so palsied his mind and 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 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.
+
+Many of the foregoing conditions and relations are _appendages_ of
+slavery, and some of them inseparable from it. But no one, nor all of
+them together, constitute its _intrinsic unchanging element_.
+
+We proceed to state affirmatively that,
+
+ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY, making free
+agents chattels, converting _persons_ into _things_, sinking
+intelligence, accountability, immortality, into _merchandise_. A _slave_
+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." _His right
+to himself is abrogated._ He is another's property. If he say _my_
+hands, _my_ feet, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY_self_; they are figures of
+speech. To _use himself_ for his own good is a CRIME. To keep what he
+_earns_ is stealing. To take his body into his own keeping is
+_insurrection_. In a word, the> _profit_ of his master is the END of his
+being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end, a _mere means_ to an end into
+which his interests do not enter, of which they constitute no
+portion[A]. MAN sunk to a _thing_! the intrinsic element, the
+_principle_ 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 _rights_ 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, _the reduction of persons to
+things_; not robbing a man of privileges, but of _himself_; not loading
+with burdens, but making him a _beast of burden_; not _restraining_
+liberty, but subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them;
+not inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not
+exacting involuntary labor, but sinking him into an _implement_ of
+labor; not abridging his human comforts, but abrogating his _human
+nature_; not depriving an animal of immunities, but _despoiling a
+rational being of attributes_, uncreating a MAN to make room for a
+_thing_!
+
+[Footnote A: Whatever system sinks man from an END to a _means_, or in
+other words, whatever transforms him from an object of instrumentality
+into a mere instrumentality _to_ an object, just so far makes him a
+_slave_. Hence West India apprenticeship retains in _one_ 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 _mere means_, a _slave_. 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.]
+
+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 _things_--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
+_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." Civil Code of
+Louisiana, Art. 35.
+
+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.
+
+Having stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE
+BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A][A]? To the _law_ and the
+_testimony_. 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. _Two_ of those commandments deal death
+to slavery. Look at the eighth, "_Thou shall not steal_," or, thou shalt
+not take from another what belongs to him. All man's powers of body and
+mind are God's gift to _him_. That they are _his own_, and that he has a
+right to them, is proved from the fact that God has given them to _him
+alone_, 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 _use_ 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 _use_. The right
+to use according to will, is _itself_ 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 _relative_ to his right to himself--is derived
+from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the _foundation
+right_--the _post in the middle_, to which all other rights are
+fastened. Slaveholders, the world over, when talking about their RIGHT
+to their slaves, always assume _their own right to themselves_. What
+slaveholder ever undertook to prove his own right to himself? He knows
+it to be a self-evident proposition, that _a man belongs to
+himself_--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 _himself_. As the fact of being _a man_ 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 _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of _his own_;
+and yet in the act of making him a slave, the slaveholder _asserts_ the
+validity of his own title, while he seizes _him_ as his property who has
+the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he does not merely
+unhumanize _one_ individual, but UNIVERSAL MAN. He destroys the
+foundations. He annihilates _all rights_. He attacks not only the human
+race, but _universal being_, and rushes upon JEHOVAH.--For rights are
+_rights_; God's are no more--man's are no less.
+
+[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral
+character. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records
+without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob
+and his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and
+concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent
+entry_ God's _endorsement_? Because the Bible, in its catalogue of human
+actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write
+against it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach
+it into a virtue?]
+
+The eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any_ part of that which
+belongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which
+forbids the taking of _any_ thing belonging to him, sanction the taking
+of _every_ thing? Is it such a medley of absurdities as to thunder wrath
+against him who robs his neighbor of a _cent_, while it bids God speed
+to him who robs his neighbor of _himself_? Slavery is the highest
+possible violation of the eighth commandment. To take from a man his
+earnings, is theft. But to take the _earner_, 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 _tenth_ adds, "_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 _tempt_ to it. Who
+ever made human beings slaves, or held them as slaves without _coveting_
+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 _take_ them, if they do not _desire_ 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. _Ten_ commandments constitute the brief compend of
+human duty. _Two_ of these brand slavery as sin.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+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--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.
+
+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. "_He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if
+he be found in his hand, he shall be surely put to death_." Ex. xxii.
+16. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance to the Mosaic
+system! See also Deut. xxiv. 7[A].
+
+[Footnote 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, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_, the person
+compelling him but once to do so shall die as a thief, whether he has
+sold him or not."]
+
+The Hebrew word, _Gaunab_, here rendered _stealeth_, means the taking
+from another what _belongs_ to him, whether it be by violence or fraud;
+the same word is used in the eighth commandment, and prohibits both
+_robbery_ and theft.
+
+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
+_servant, not_ "he that stealeth a _man_." If the crime had been the
+taking of an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have
+been _expressive of that relation_, and _most especially_ if it was the
+relation of property and _proprietor_!
+
+The crime, as stated in the passage, is three-fold--man _stealing_,
+_selling_ and _holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one
+penalty--DEATH. This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of man, is the
+_man himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said to the servants
+of Pharoah, "Indeed I was _stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews."
+Gen. xl. 15. How _stolen_? His brethren took him and sold him as an
+_article of merchandize_. Contrast this penalty for _man_-stealing with
+that for _property_-stealing. Exod. xxii. If a man stole an _ox_ 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.
+
+But in the case of stealing a _man_, 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
+_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-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 _property value_ was taken. The penalty for stealing _property_
+was a mere _property penalty_. However large the amount stolen, the
+payment of _double_ wiped out the score. It might have a greater _money_
+value than a _thousand_ men, yet _death_ was never the penalty, nor
+maiming, nor branding, nor even _stripes_. Whatever the kind, or the
+amount stolen, the unvarying penalty was double of _the same kind_. Why
+was not the rule uniform? When a _man_ was stolen why not require the
+thief 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 _have_ them? So
+the _ox_-thief might not have two _oxen_, or if he had killed it,
+_five_. But if God permitted men to hold _men_ 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 whole of the legal penalty was
+a compensation to the person injured. But when a _man_ was stolen, no
+property compensation was offered. To tender _money_ 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 _money!_
+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 _man-stealing_
+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."
+
+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, perhaps not a sixpence worth, of _that_ 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 _property_, by putting him
+_on a level with it_?
+
+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 _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 the _nature_
+of the article, but in _shifting its external relation_ from _him to
+me_. But when I take my neighbor _himself_, and first make him
+_property_, and then _my_ 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 _already property_, but in turning _personality_
+into _property_. True, the _attributes_ of man still remain, but the
+rights and immunities which grow out of them are _annihilated_. 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 _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
+in its "scarlet dye." The sin specified in the passage, is that of doing
+violence to the _nature_ of a _man_--his _intrinsic value_ 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, "_He then 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
+that same blow were given to a _parent_, the law struck the smiter
+_dead_. 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 _centre_ of human relations. To violate that,
+is to violate _all_. Whoever trampled on _that_, 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.
+
+But why the difference in the penalty since the _act_ was the same? The
+sin had divers aggravations.
+
+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 centre of the social
+system, and required powerful safe-guards. "_Honor thy father and thy
+mother_," 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
+_smiting_, nor for smiting a _man_, but a _parent_--for violating a
+vital and sacred relation--a _distinction_ 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 _fundamental relations_, doing violence
+to an _immortal nature_, making war on a _sacred distinction_ of
+priceless worth. That distinction which is cast headlong by the
+principle of American slavery; which makes MEN "_chattels_."
+
+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.
+
+"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?
+"_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, and over every living thing
+that moveth upon the earth_."
+
+_Then_ 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"--"_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_." 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, "_Whoso
+sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for_ 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 _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 Levit. xxiv. 17, 18, "_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 the passage quoted above, Ps. viii. 5, 6. What an
+enumeration of particulars, each separating infinitely, MEN from brutes
+and things!
+
+1. "_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels_." Slavery drags
+him down among _brutes_.
+
+2. "_And hast crowned him with glory and honor_." Slavery tears off his
+crown, and puts on a _yoke_.
+
+3. "_Thou madest him to have dominion_ OVER _the works of thy hands_."
+Slavery breaks his sceptre, and casts him down _among_ those works--yea,
+_beneath them_.
+
+4. "_Thou hast put all things under his feet_." Slavery puts HIM _under
+the feet of an owner_, 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, "_Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it
+unto me_."
+
+But time would fail us to detail the instances in which this distinction
+is most impressively marked in the Bible.
+
+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 _legal_ forms of Divine
+institutions previously existing. As a _system_, however, the latter
+alone is of Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the
+_patriarchs_, God has not made them our examplars[A].
+
+[Footnote 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 _concubinage_,
+winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, 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!]
+
+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.
+
+
+IMPORT OF THE WORD "BUY," AND THE PHRASE "BOUGHT WITH MONEY."
+
+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 _property_. The sole ground for this
+belief is the _terms_ "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
+_assumed_. To _beg_ 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 _one_ 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
+_slaves, is the terms themselves._
+
+What a Babel-jargon it would make of the Bible to take it for granted
+that the sense in which words are _now_ used is the _inspired_ sense.
+
+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, _prevent_ was used in the strict Latin sense to
+_come before_, or _anticipate_. 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 _prevent_ thee."
+"Let us _prevent_ his face with thanksgiving." "Mine eyes _prevent_ the
+night watches." "We shall not _prevent_ 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 _opposite_ to their
+present meaning. A few examples follow: "Oftentimes I purposed to come
+to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the four _beasts_
+(living ones) fell down and worshipped God,"--Whosoever shall _offend_
+(cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--Go out into the high ways and
+_compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--Only let your _conversation_
+(habitual conduct or course of life) be as becometh the Gospel,"--They
+that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me,--Give me _by and by_
+(now) in a charger, the head of John the Baptist,"--So when tribulation
+or persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (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 _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 _now_. 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 _now_, they _must_ have been in Canaan
+and Pandanaram four thousand years ago!
+
+II. 1. The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring
+of servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the
+fallacy--that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or
+whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of
+your paying for it _proves_ that it is property. The children of Israel
+were required to _purchase_ 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 _buy_ is
+still used to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their
+first-born were, or are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really
+as were _servants_. So 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?
+
+2. Bible saints _bought_ their wives. Boaz _bought_ Ruth. "So Ruth the
+Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ to be my wife." Ruth
+iv. 10. Hosea bought his wife. "So I _bought_ 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 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 _give_. 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 _real_ 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 _medium_ 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 _wives_, their husbands and their masters
+being the same persons. Exod. xxi. 8, and Judges xix. 3, 27. If _buying_
+servants among the Jews shows that they were property, then buying
+_wives_ shows that _they_ 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
+_bound_ 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.
+
+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 _marriages_ in the old German
+Chronicles was "A. BOUGHT B."
+
+The Hebrew word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the
+nature of the subject to which it is applied. Eve says, "I have _gotten_
+(bought) a man of the Lord." She named him Cain, that is, _bought_. "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 _buy_)
+the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. He brought them to this
+mountain which his right hand had _purchased_, i.e. gotten. Jer. xiii.
+4. "Take the girdle that thou hast got" (bought.) Neh. v. 8. "We of our
+ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren that were sold to the
+heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons who were made
+slaves, but to those taken _out_ 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 _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own
+soul." Prov. xvi. 16. "How much better is it to _get_ (buy) wisdom than
+gold?" Finally, to _buy_ is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word
+_Kana_.
+
+4. Even at this day the word _buy_ 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 "_bought_" 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.
+
+So under the system of legal _indenture_ in Illinois, servants now are
+"_bought_."[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 _bought out_ 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 _bought_
+him." When Robert Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever
+will pay it can _buy_ 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 _buy_ them," they both meant
+_just what they said_. When the temperance publications tell us that
+candidates for office _buy_ men with whiskey; and the oracles of street
+tattle, that the court, district attorney, and jury, in the late trial
+of Robinson were _bought_, we have no floating visions of "chattels
+personal," man auctions, or coffles.
+
+[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the state of
+Illinois--"No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time _purchase_
+any servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the
+persons aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such
+servant shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed, and
+taken."]
+
+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 _buy_ them. When the bargain was closed, Joseph said, "Behold I
+have _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain that neither of the
+parties dreamed that the persons _bought_ were in any sense articles of
+property, but merely that they became thereby obligated to labor for the
+government on certain conditions, as a _compensation_ 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 _value received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were
+bereft of their personal ownership, and made articles of property. And
+this buying of _services_ (they were to give one-fifth part of their
+crops to Pharaoh) is called in Scripture usage, _buying the persons_.
+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 _mere fact_ is stated without
+entering into particulars. In this case, the whole process is laid open.
+
+1. The persons "bought," _sold themselves_, and of their own accord.
+
+2. Obtaining permanently the _services_ of persons, or even a portion of
+them, is called "buying" those persons. The objector, at the outset,
+assumes that servants were bought of _third_ persons; and thence infers
+that they were articles of property. This is sheer _assumption_. 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 _master sold his servant_. That the servants who
+were "bought" _sold themselves_, is a fair inference from various
+passages of Scripture.
+
+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 _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word, which, in the 47th
+verse, is rendered _sell himself_, is in the 39th verse of the same
+chapter, rendered _be sold_; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is
+rendered "_be sold_." 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 _offer yourselves_ for sale. For
+a clue to Scripture usage on this point, see 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25--"Thou
+hast _sold thyself_ to work evil." "There was none like to Ahab that
+_sold himself_ to work wickedness."--2 Kings xvii. 17. "They used
+divination and enchantments, and _sold themselves_ to do evil."--Isa. l.
+1. "For your iniquities have ye _sold yourselves_." Isa. lii. 3, "Ye
+have _sold yourselves_ 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.
+
+Again, if servants were _bought of third persons_, where are the
+instances? In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is
+generally stated that they were bought of _third_ persons. Is it not a
+fair inference, if servants were bought of third persons, that there
+would _sometimes_ have been such an intimation?
+
+
+
+II.-THE LEADING DESIGN OF THE MOSAIC LAWS RELATING TO MASTERS AND
+SERVANTS, WITH AN ENUMERATION OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO
+SERVANTS.
+
+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 _servants_. While the interests of the master were
+specially guarded from injury, those of the servants were _promoted_.
+
+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 _privileges_--a bestowment of _favors_.
+
+1. _No servant from the Strangers, could remain a servant in the family
+of an Israelite, without becoming a proselyte_. Compliance with this
+condition was the _price of the privilege_.--Genesis xvii. 9-14, 23, 27.
+
+2. _Excommunication from the family was a_ PUNISHMENT.--Genesis xxi.
+14-Luke xvi. 2-4.
+
+3. _The fact that every Hebrew servant could_ COMPEL _his master to keep
+him after the six years contract had, expired_, 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
+_demanded_ it, the law _obliged_ 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.
+
+4. _The rights and privileges guaranteed by law to all servants._ (1.)
+_They were admitted into covenant with God._ Deut. xxix. 10-13.
+
+(2.) _They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals
+of the household in which they resided._ Exodus xii. 43-44; Deut. xii.
+12, 18, and xvi. 10-16.
+
+(3.) _They were statedly instructed in morality and religion._ Deut.
+xxxi. 10-13; Joshua viii. 33-35; 2 Chronicles xvii. 8-9.
+
+(4.) _They were released from their regular labor nearly_ 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.
+
+(a.) The Law secured to them the _whole of every seventh year_; Lev.
+xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those servants that remained such during the
+entire period between the jubilees, _eight whole years_ (including the
+Jubilee year) of unbroken rest.
+
+(b.) _Every seventh day_. This in forty-two years, (the eight being
+subtracted from the fifty) would amount to just _six years_.
+
+(c.) _The three great annual festivals_. The _Passover_, 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 _festival week_; 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 _nine weeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years,
+subtracting the sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.
+
+(e.) _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus tells us that
+the Jews always kept _two_ 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.
+
+(f.) _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and
+of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.
+
+(g.) _The day of atonement_. On the tenth of the seventh month. Lev.
+xxiii. 27-32.
+
+These two last feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days of
+time not otherwise reckoned.
+
+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
+_fractions_ to the objector, we have left out of the account, those
+numerous _local_ festivals to which frequent allusion is made, as in
+Judges xxi. 19; 1 Sam. 9th chapter. And the various _family_ 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.
+
+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 _every day_, the servants would have _to
+themselves_, all but a _fraction of_ ONE HALF OF EACH DAY, and would
+labor for their masters the remaining fraction and the other half of the
+day.
+
+THIS REGULATION IS A PART OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY
+SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE GREAT PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.
+
+5. _The servant was protected by law equally with the other members of
+the community_.
+
+Proof--"_Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously
+between every man and his neighbor, 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, 17. Also in Lev. xxiv. 22.
+"_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_." So Numbers 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, _the fatherless and the
+widow_."
+
+6. _The Mosaic system enjoined upon the Israelites the greatest
+affection and kindness toward their servants, foreign as well as
+Jewish_.
+
+Lev. xix. 34. "_The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as
+one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself_." Also Deut. x.
+17, 19. "_For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a
+great God, a mighty and a terrible, which_ REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, _nor
+taketh reward. 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 Exodus xxii. 21. "_Thou shalt neither vex a
+stranger nor oppress him_." Exodus 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_." [What an absurdity to suppose
+that _this same stranger_ could be taken by one that _feared his God_,
+held as a _slave_, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights!]
+
+7. _Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in all civil
+and religious rights_. See Numbers xv. 15, 16, 29. Numb. ix. 14. Deut,
+i. 16, 17. Lev. xxiv. 22.
+
+
+
+III.--DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE THEY MADE
+SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?
+
+We argue that they became servants _of their own accord_,
+
+1. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to
+abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God[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.
+
+[Footnote 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."
+"But he that is in the _house_ 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 _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown
+slave, and he be _unwilling_, 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 _refuse_ 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."--Maimon, Hilcoth, Miloth, Chap. 1st,
+Sec. 8th.
+
+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 _full
+compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. But
+that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign servant for a
+year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of an Israelite)
+of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a mere usage_.
+We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system.
+Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_. Whether it was
+a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes not within the
+scope of this inquiry. Nor does it at all affect the argument. ]
+
+Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes? Was the
+renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant
+with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they
+_compelled_ 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 _driven_ 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?
+
+We repeat it, to become a _servant_, was to become a _proselyte_. 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
+_merchandise_? Were _proselyte_ and _chattel_ synonymes, in the Divine
+vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into covenant
+with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and the sole
+passport to the communion of the saints?
+
+2. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,
+"_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_."
+
+As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the
+_right_ of the master to hold him. His _fleeing_ "shows his
+_choice_--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 _right_ 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 _Israelites_, but
+only to those of _heathen_ 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 _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and
+yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of
+_thousands_ of servants from the heathen! Suppose a case. A _foreign_
+servant flees from his master to the Israelites; God speaks, "He shall
+dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy
+gates where it _liketh_ him best." They were strictly charged not to put
+him in a condition which he did not _choose_. Now, suppose this same
+servant, instead of coming into Israel of his own accord, had been
+_dragged_ 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 _voluntarily_ came into the land,
+sanction the _same_ treatment of the _same person_, 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 a
+horrible enormity, forsooth, PROVIDED you _begin_ the violence _after_
+he has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_, on the _other
+side of the line_; if you _begin_ the outrage by buying him from a third
+person _against his will_, 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 _greater_ 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 _him_, uncircumcised and _out_ of the covenant, a
+justice and kindness denied to the multitude, who _were_ circumcised,
+and _within_ the covenant?
+
+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 _counteraction of will_. Further, the
+objector's assumption destroys itself; for the same command which
+protected the foreign servant from the power of his _master_, protected
+him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was not merely, "Thou
+shalt not deliver him to his _master_," but "he (the servant) shall
+dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, 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 _against his
+will_. What was this but a proclamation, that all who _chose_ 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
+_foreign_ servants merely, was the any law requiring the return of
+servants who had escaped from the _Israelites_? There was a statute
+requiring the return of _property_ lost, and _cattle_ escaped, but none
+requiring the return of escaped _servants_.
+
+Finally, these verses contain, _first_, a command, "Thou shalt not
+deliver," &c. _Secondly_, a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free
+choice_, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own
+discretion; and _thirdly_, a command guarding this right, namely, "Thou
+shalt not oppress him," as though God had said, If you forbid him to
+exercise his _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his
+residence, it is _oppression_, and I will not tolerate it.
+
+3. _We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar
+opportunities and facilities for escape_. 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
+_"slaves"_ three times in a year to Jerusalem and back? When a body of
+slaves is moved any distance in our free and equal _republic_, they are
+handcuffed to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers'
+brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ 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 _extra_ being appointed, and special "ORAL instruction" for
+their benefit. But meanwhile, what became of the sturdy _handmaids_ 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.
+
+4. _Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance
+of various rites and ceremonies necessarily_ VOLUNTARY.
+
+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 _slave_, how simple the process of
+emancipation! His _refusal_ 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;" _excommunicated_.
+
+5. _We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs from
+the impossibility of their being held against their wills._ The servants
+of Abraham are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred and
+eighteen _young men_ "born in his house," and probably many more _not_
+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 _took turns_ 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," _provided_ they
+had a description of the "flesh marks," and were stimulated in their
+chivalry by _pieces of silver_. 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.
+
+6. _We infer that servants were voluntary, from the fact that there is
+no instance of an Israelitish master ever_ SELLING _a servant_. 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.
+
+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 _no
+servants_. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 6; xlvii. 1. His servants doubtless,
+served under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into Egypt, they
+_chose_ to stay in their own country.
+
+The government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until
+their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex.
+xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their
+_servants_--the reason is obvious. To give the master a _right_ 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 _buy_ a
+servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of choice_. 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 _another_ man.
+
+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
+_fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their betrothal as
+WIVES. Exodus 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]."
+
+[Footnote 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."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, 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 _money of her purchase_ is the money of her
+_espousals_." ]
+
+7. _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 _choice_ 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
+_free choice_ protected, that his master was compelled to keep him,
+however much he might wish to get rid of him.
+
+8. _The method prescribed for procuring servants, recognized their
+choice, and was an appeal to it_. The Israelites were commanded to offer
+them a suitable _inducement_, and then leave them to decide. They might
+neither seize by _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle
+them by false pretenses, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they
+were commanded to BUY them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the
+_right_ of the individuals to their own services--their right to
+_dispose_ of them, and their right to _refuse all offers_. They might,
+if they pleased, refuse all applications, and thus oblige those who made
+them, _to do their own work_. Suppose all, with one accord, _refused_ to
+become servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an
+emergency? NONE.
+
+[Footnote 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, _stands by itself_, and has no relation to the
+condition of servants.]
+
+9. _Various incidental expressions throughout the Bible, corroborate the
+idea that servants became such by virtue of 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?_"
+
+10. _The transaction which made the Egyptians the_ SERVANTS OF PHAROAH,
+_shows entire voluntariness throughout_. 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 _bodies_ and our lands; _buy_ us;" then in the 25th
+verse, _"Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my
+Lord, and we will be servants to Pharaoh._"
+
+11. _We argue that the condition of servants was an_ OPTIONAL _one 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.
+
+12. _The sacrifices and offerings which_ ALL _were required to present,
+were to be made_ VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3.
+
+13. _Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where they were
+manifestly and pre-eminently_ VOLUNTARY. The case of the Prophet Elisha
+is one. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. 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 _master_ 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.
+
+
+
+IV. WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?
+
+Having already shown that the servants became and continued such _of
+their own accord_, it would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work
+without pay. Their becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a
+motive.
+
+That they _were paid_ for their labor, we argue,
+
+1. _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._" 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 _Mosaic system_. The Hebrew word _Rea_, here translated
+_neighbor_, 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, not merely servants and heathen, but 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." Exod. xx.
+16. "_If any man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with
+guile_." Exod. xxi. 14. In these, and in scores of similar cases, _Rea_
+is the original word.
+
+2. _We have the testimony of God, 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 Saviour, in giving this command, quoted
+_verbatim_ 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, "_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, 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 _our own_ good alone,
+Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human
+nature, especially for that libellous matter in Ephes. v. 29, "_No man
+ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it_."
+
+3. _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 still employed twenty servants, of whom
+he was the master.
+
+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
+_redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. As he was forced to
+sell himself from sheer poverty he must not only have acquired property
+_after_ he became a servant, but a considerable sum.
+
+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]) 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[B]. 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 _owner of a house_. 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 _servants_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide with accuracy
+upon the _relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and _now_, yet we have
+enough to warrant us in saying that two talents of silver had far more
+value _then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing
+a large amount of money? They "_know how to take care of themselves_"
+quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on
+such a _small_ scale, or in the taking of _such things_ 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 _proficients_ in the art, who drive the
+business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their
+betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at
+a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ 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 _Right_ and _Very
+Reverends_! 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
+_situation_, 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 _slay_ one who
+would slay him" See Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8]
+
+4. _Heirship_--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.
+
+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 _husbandmen_ who said
+of their master's son, "_this is the_ HEIR, let us kill him, _and_ the
+INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS." Mark xii. 7, are illustrations. Also the
+declaration in 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 seems to give _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?
+
+5. 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 _acquiring_ property to
+meet these expenditures.
+
+6. _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 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]." 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
+_Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they
+did not go out in the seventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. If
+the fact that no mention is made of the Gentile servants receiving such
+a _gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_; it proves
+that the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs
+also, a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators,
+however unscrupulous.
+
+[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as
+follows--"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say,
+'_Loading ye shall load him._' 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 _you, not less
+than thirty shekels_, which is the valuation of a servant, as declared
+in Exodus xxi. 32"--Maimonides, Hilcoth, Obedim, Chapter ii. Section 3.]
+
+7. _The servants were_ BOUGHT. _In other words, they received
+compensation for their services in advance_. Having shown, under a
+previous head, that servants _sold themselves_, 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[B],) a mere
+reference to the fact in this place is all that is required for the
+purposes of this argument.
+
+[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and
+boys at thirteen years.]
+
+8. _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._ 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.
+
+9. _God's testimony to the character of Abraham._ Genesis 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." 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? "_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
+_"do justice"_ to others? By doing _injustice to them?_ Did he exhort
+them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back _their own_? Did he
+teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire" by robbing them of
+_theirs_? 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 _them_ "what was just and equal?" If
+each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very
+_Aristides_ in justice, then an illustrious example, patriarchal
+dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway against
+human perverseness!
+
+10. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles._
+Out of many, we select the following:
+
+(1.) _"Thou shall 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. Isaiah xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of service--_all_ kinds;
+and a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal
+ministering to man in a _certain_ 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_,
+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 _present enjoyment of a brute_, what
+would be a meet return for the services of _man_? 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--_"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. 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 _keeping_ 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 ALL HIS EARNINGS? Judge ye.
+
+
+
+V.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS THEIR LEGAL PROPERTY?
+
+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.
+
+
+
+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; Isaiah l. 1; Matt. xviii. 25.
+
+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 _servants_ were taken
+in _no instance_.
+
+(2.) _Servants were never given as pledges_. _Property_ 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
+_servants_.
+
+(3.) _All lost_ PROPERTY _was to be restored._ "Oxen, asses, sheep,
+raiment, and whatsoever lost things," are specified--servant _not_.
+Deut. xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were expressly forbidden to take
+back the runaway servant to his master. Deut. xxiii. 15.
+
+(4.) _The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents_. 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 _gifts_. 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.
+
+OBJECTION 1. _Laban_ GAVE _handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives_.
+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 _as articles of property_, then, indeed, the example of this "good
+old patriarch and slaveholder," Saint Laban, would have been a
+fore-closer to all argument.
+
+Ah! We remember his jealousy for _religion_--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!"
+
+OBJECTION 2. _Servants were enumerated in inventories of property_. If
+that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ 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_" EXODUS xx. 17.
+An examination of all the places in which servants are included among
+beasts, chattels, &c., will show, that in inventories of _mere
+property_, servants are not included, or if 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
+_greatness_ 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
+_riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if
+_greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. _"And Abraham was very
+rich in cattle, in silver and in gold."_ No mention of _servants_. So in
+the fifth verse; Lot's riches are enumerated, "_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 1. 3-5; Deut. viii.
+12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, and xxvi. 13, and xxx. 43.
+
+Divers facts dropped incidentally, show that when servants are mentioned
+in connection with property, it is in such a way as to _distinguish_
+them from it. When Jacob was about to leave Laban, his wives say, "All
+the _riches_ 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, _but they are not included with his property_.
+Compare Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16-18.
+
+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 _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 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 _staples_ of wealth, a large number of servants
+_presupposed_ large possessions of cattle, which would require many
+herdsmen. Further. When servants are spoken of in connection with _mere
+property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the
+former.
+
+The Hebrew word _Mickna_ is an illustration. It is a derivative of
+_Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, a _possession, wealth,
+riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament--and is
+applied always to _mere property_--generally to domestic animals, but
+_never_ to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in
+_distinction_ from the _Mickna._ See Gen. xii. 5. _"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_." _Substance
+gathered_ and _souls gotten_! Many will have it, that these _souls_ were
+a part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here taken to
+separate them from it)--that they were _slaves_--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 "_the souls that they had gotten_?" 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] 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 _made_."
+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[B]." "Those whom they have converted from
+idolatry."--Paulus Fagius[C]. "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."
+
+[Footnote 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 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. ]
+
+
+[Footnote B: See his "Brevis explicatio sensus literalis totius
+Scripture."]
+
+
+[Footnote C: 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.]
+
+
+
+2. _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_ COMMODITIES, _an absurdity._ The testimony of Paul, in
+Gal. iv. 1, gives an insight into 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--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.
+
+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, "_ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash his
+feet, and the men's feet that were with him!"_
+
+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 _thirty_ 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 _both_ 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 _servant_ 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 _chiefest seat_ at the
+table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of _Kish_, Saul's father; not
+the _steward_ or the _chief_ of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but
+"_one_ of the servants;" _any_ one that could be most easily spared, as
+no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking
+after asses.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+3. _The condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrew
+commonwealth, shows that they were neither articles of property, nor
+even_ INVOLUNTARY _servants_. 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 _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.) _It was voluntary_. 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.
+
+(2.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of the
+Israelites_. They still continued to reside in their own cities,
+cultivating their own fields, tending their flocks and herds, and
+exercising the functions of a _distinct_, though not independent
+community. They were _subject_ to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. 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.
+
+(1.) Whenever allusion is made to them in the history, the main body are
+spoken of as _at home_.
+
+(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 _national tribute_ to the Israelites, rendered for the privilege
+of residence and protection under their government. No service seems to
+have been required of the _females_. 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 _them_ to the condition of chattels and property,
+if there was _any_ case in which God permitted them to do so.
+
+7. _Because, throughout the Mosaic system, God warns them against
+holding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the
+Egyptians_. 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.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) _The Israelites were not dispersed among
+the families of Egypt, the property of individual owners_[A]. They
+formed a _separate_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ 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.]
+
+(2.) _They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen_[B], _one
+of the richest and most productive parts of Egypt_. Gen. xlv. 18, and
+xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27.
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+(3.) _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were _houses_, not
+_tents_. In Ex. xii. 6, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_
+of the houses are mentioned, and in the 22d, the two side posts and the
+lintel. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_--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.
+
+(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 _tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1, and xii.
+19, 21, and vi. 14, 25, and v. 19, and iii. 16, 18.
+
+(6.) _They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal of
+their own time_,--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.
+
+(7.) _They were all armed_. Ex. xxxii. 27.
+
+(8.) _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, and 35, 36.
+
+(9.) _They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem
+to have regarded them as inviolable_. 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.
+
+(10.) _Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males_.
+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.) 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.
+
+(12.) _That the great body of the people were not in the service of the
+Egyptians, we infer_ (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.
+
+(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 _there_ to enjoy it.
+
+(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.
+
+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 _at any one time_.
+
+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
+_crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_ than crops) they exacted
+it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that only the
+_poorer_ 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.
+
+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 "_sit by
+the flesh-pots_," "_eat fish freely_," and "_eat bread to the full_?" 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
+_their own_ 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?
+
+THE ISRAELITES, UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND
+PRIVILEGES. True, "_their lives were made bitter, and all the service
+wherein they made them serve was with rigor_." 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]!--their _only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ shirt and
+_one_ pair of pantaloons[B]!"--the _two hours and a half_ only for rest
+and refreshment in the twenty-four[C]!--their dwellings, _hovels_, 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 _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.
+
+[Footnote A: The law of North Carolina. See Haywood's Manual, 524-5]
+
+
+[Footnote B: The law of Louisiana. See Martin's Digest, 610.]
+
+
+[Footnote C: The whole amount of time secured by the law of Louisiana.
+See Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12]
+
+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 gave his people permission to hold
+human beings, robbed of _all_ their rights, while he threatened them
+with wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_
+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 _Lawgiver_,
+did he _create_ 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?"
+
+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.
+
+
+
+OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+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 _cause_ 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.
+
+How often has it been set up in type, that the color of the negro is the
+_Cain-mark_, 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?
+
+
+
+OBJECTION 1. "_Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto
+his brethren_." Gen. i. 25.
+
+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.
+
+Those who plead the curse on Canaan to justify negro slavery, _assume_
+all the points in debate.
+
+1. That the condition prophesied was _slavery_, rather than the mere
+_rendering of service_ to others, and that it was the bondage of
+_individuals_ rather than the condition of a _nation tributary_ to
+another, and in _that_ sense its _servant_.
+
+2. That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_ it; that it grants
+absolution to those whose crimes fulfil it, if it does not transform the
+crimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharaohs might have quoted God's
+prophecy to Abraham, "_Thy seed shall be in bondage, and they shall
+afflict them for four hundred years_." And then, what _saints_ 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 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 _now_ the servant of Shem and Japhet and the
+other sons of Ham.
+
+But it may still be objected, that though Canaan is the only one _named_
+in the curse, yet the 22d and 23d verses show that it was pronounced
+upon the posterity of Ham in general. "_And Ham, the father of Canaan,
+saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren
+without_."--Verse 22. In verse 23, Shem and Japhet cover their father
+with a garment. Verse 24, "_And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what
+his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said_," &c.
+
+It is argued that this younger son cannot be _Canaan_, as he was not the
+_son_, but the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham_. We
+answer, whoever that "_younger son_" was, or whatever he did, _Canaan_
+alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies
+son, grandson, great-grandson, or _any one_ of the posterity of an
+individual. Gen. xxix. 5, "_And he said unto them, Know ye Laban, the_
+SON _of Nahor_?" Yet Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxiv. 15,
+29. In 2 Sam. xix. 24, it is said, "_Mephibosheth, the_ SON _of Saul,
+came down to meet the king_." But Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan,
+and the _grandson_ of Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. So Ruth iv. 17. "_There is a_
+SON _born to Naomi_." This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of
+Naomi. Ruth iv. 13, 15. So 2 Sam. xxi. 6. "_Let seven men of his
+(Saul's)_ SONS _be delivered unto us_," &c. Seven of Saul's _grandsons_
+were delivered up. 2 Sam. xxi. 8, 9. So Gen. xxi. 28, "_And hast not
+suffered me to kiss my_ SONS _and my daughters_;" and in the 55th verse,
+"_And early in the morning Laban rose up and kissed his_ SONS," &c.
+These were his _grandsons_. So 2 Kings ix. 20, "_The driving of Jehu,
+the_ SON _of Nimshi_." So 1 Kings xix. 16. But Jehu was the _grandson_
+of Nimshi. 2 Kings ix. 2, 14. Who will forbid the inspired writer to use
+the _same_ word when speaking of _Noah's_ grandson?
+
+Further, if Ham were meant what propriety in calling him the _younger_
+son? The order in which Noah's sons are always mentioned, makes Ham the
+_second_, and not the _younger_ 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 _rule_, in any other order the _exception_. 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 _Hakkaton_, rendered
+_younger_, means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isaiah
+xl. 22. "A LITTLE ONE _shall become a thousand_." Also in Isaiah xxii.
+24. "_All vessels of_ SMALL _quantity_." So Psalms cxv. 13. "_He will
+bless them that fear the Lord, both_ SMALL _and great_." Also Exodus
+xviii. 22. "_But every_ SMALL _matter they shall judge_." It would be a
+perfectly literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus,
+"when Noah knew what his little son[A], or grandson (_Beno hakkaton_)
+had done unto him, he said, cursed be Canaan," &c.
+
+[Footnote A: The French language in this respect follows the same
+analogy. Our word _grandson_ being in French, _petit fils_, (little
+son.)]
+
+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 _fraction_ 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 _home_, we answer, 1st. _It is false in point of fact_, though
+zealously bruited often to serve a turn. 2d. _If it were true_, how does
+it help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of
+servants shall he be unto his brethren" not unto _himself_!
+
+
+
+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_." Exodus xxi. 20, 21.
+
+Arguments drawn from the Mosaic system in support of slavery, originate
+in a misconception both of its genius, _as a whole_, and of the design
+and scope of its most simple provisions. The verses quoted above, afford
+an illustration in point.
+
+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 _capital_? 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 _murder_? 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 _the
+intent_, in actions brought before them. The detail gone into, in the
+verses quoted, is manifestly to enable the judges to get at the _motive_
+of the action, and find out whether the master _designed_ to kill.
+
+1. "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument used,
+gives a clue to the _intent_. See Numbers xxxv. 16, 18. It was a _rod_,
+not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other
+death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_
+would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_
+for its weapon. But if the servant dies _under his hand_, then the
+unfitness of the instrument, instead of being evidence in his favor, is
+point blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_ until he
+_dies_, argues a _great many_ blows laid on with _great_ violence, and
+this kept up to the death-gasp, establishes the point of _intent to
+kill_. Hence the sentence, "He shall _surely_ be punished." The case is
+plain and strong. But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length of
+time that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, and
+the fact that the master had a pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he is
+his _money_,") all, made out a strong case of circumstantial evidence,
+showing that the master did not _design_ 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
+_punished_, (_Nakum_,) is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet it
+occurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament--in almost every instance,
+it is translated _avenge_--in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_to
+revenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in our
+translation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the _master_--the
+_master_ in the 21st verse, is to be _punished_, and in the 22d _not_ to
+be punished; whereas the preceding pronoun refers neither to the
+_master_ nor to the _servant_, but to the _crime_, and the word rendered
+_punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. 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, _by avenging
+it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be
+_avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the next verse--"If he
+continues a day or two," his death shall not be avenged by the _death_
+of the _master_, for in that case the crime was to be adjudged
+_manslaughter_, and not _murder_, 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 _a sum of money_; and yet our translators
+employ the same phraseology in both places. One, an instance of
+deliberate, wanton, _killing by piecemeal_. The other and _accidental_,
+and comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they
+say the same thing! "_He shall surely be punished_." 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
+_avenged_," (_Nakum_,) 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, whether
+individuals or communities, to _destruction_. In the case of the
+_unintentional_ injury, in the following verse, God says, "He shall
+surely be" _fined_, (_Aunash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges
+determine." The simple meaning of the word _Aunash_, 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 (_mulcted_) the land
+in a hundred talents of gold.--This is the general use of the word, and
+its primary signification. That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was
+neither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor amercing the master in damages,
+but that it was _taking the master's life_ we infer.
+
+1. From the _Bible usage_ 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.
+
+2. From the express statute in such case provided. Leviticus xxiv. 17.
+"_He that killeth_ ANY _man_ shall surely be put to death." Also Numbers
+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 assuredly be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem thus, "Vengeance
+shall be taken for him to the _uttermost_." Jarchi gives the same
+rendering. The Samaritan version thus, "He shall die the death."
+
+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 _property_, and
+_therefore_, if he died, the master was not _to be punished_. _Because_,
+1st. A man may dispose of his _property_ as he pleases. 2d. If the
+servant died of the injury, the master's _loss_ 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 _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an
+_article of property_. 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) _is_ my body;"
+"this (wine) _is_ my blood;" "all they (the Israelites) _are_ brass, and
+tin, and iron, and lead;" "this _is_ life eternal, that they might know
+thee;" "this (the water of the well of Bethlehem) _is_ the blood of the
+men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "I _am_ the lily of the
+valleys;" "a garden enclosed _is_ my sister;" "my tears _have been_ my
+meat;" "the Lord God _is_ a sun and a shield;" "God _is_ love;" "the
+Lord _is_ my rock;" "the seven good ears _are_ seven years, and the
+seven good kine _are_ seven years;" "the seven thin and ill-favored kine
+_are_ seven years, and the seven empty ears blasted by the east wind
+_shall be_ seven years of famine;" "he _shall be_ head, and thou _shall_
+be tail;" "the Lord _will_ be a wall of fire;" "they _shall_ be one
+flesh;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "God _is_ a consuming
+fire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_
+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 _silver_ 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 _solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble with
+all--reasoning against "_forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and,
+Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted.
+
+Who in his senses believes that in the expression, "_He is his money_,"
+the object was to inculcate the doctrine that the servant was a
+_chattel_? The obvious meaning is, he is _worth money_ to his master,
+and since, if the master killed him, it would take money out of his
+pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the
+fact of his living some time after the injury_, (as, if the master
+_meant_ to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) all
+together make out a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the
+master of _intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's
+inferences. One is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_
+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 _equally_ his master's property, and the objector admits
+that in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely punished" for
+destroying _his own property_! The other inference is, that since the
+continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of _intent to kill_, 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 _pecuniary loss_, constituted no part of the
+claims of the law, where a person took the _life_ 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. "_Ye
+shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, but he shall
+surely be put to death_." 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 _adequate_ to the desert of the master, admits the master's
+_guilt_--his desert of _some_ 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--resolves himself into a
+legislature, with power in the premises, makes a _new_ 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!
+
+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
+_pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though the servant had
+_died_. 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--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same._ 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
+_same_ punishment for even the _accidental_ knocking out of a _tooth_!
+Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_, the loss of the
+servant's services is only a _part_ of the punishment--mere reparation
+to the _individual_ for injury done; the _main_ punishment, that
+strictly _judicial_, was, reparation to the _community_ for injury to
+one of its members. To set the servant _free_, 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." _"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_ STRANGER _as for one of your own country_." Lev. xxiv. 19,
+20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out the tooth of a servant, the law
+smote out _his_ tooth--thus redressing the _public_ 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.
+
+
+
+OBJECTION III. _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_. Lev. xxv. 44-46.
+
+The _points_ 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."
+
+The _second_ point, the _buying_ of servants, has been already
+discussed, see page 15. And a part of the _third_ (holding servants as a
+"possession." See p. 36.) We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery
+is derivable from the terms "bondmen," "inheritance," and "forever."
+
+I. BONDMEN. The fact that servants, from the heathen are called
+"_bondmen_," while others are called "servants," is quoted as proof that
+the former were slaves. As the _caprices_ of King James' translators
+were not divinely inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The
+word rendered _bondmen_, in this passage, is the same word uniformly
+rendered _servants_ elsewhere. To infer from this that the Gentile
+servants were slaves, is absurd. Look at the use of the Hebrew word
+"_Ebed_," the plural of which is here translated "_bondmen_." In Isaiah
+xlii. 1, the _same word_ is applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_
+(bondman, slave?) whom I have chosen, mine elect in whom my soul
+delighteth." So Isaiah lii. 13. "Behold my _servant_ (Christ) shall deal
+prudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it is applied to _King Rehoboam_. "And
+they (the old men) spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_
+(_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 _servants_
+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 _all_ 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 _Lord_
+and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah, and in respectful
+addresses not less than _fifty_ times in the Old Testament.
+
+If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, why had
+their language _no word_ that _meant slave_? If Abraham had thousands,
+and if they _abounded_ under the Mosaic system, why had they no such
+_word_ as slave or slavery? 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 "_Ebed_," yet he _"owned_" (!) twenty _Ebeds_. In
+_English_, we have both the words _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we
+have both the _things_, and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a
+sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but
+our dictionaries give us none. Why? because there is no such _thing_.
+But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _Ebed_
+if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. The servants of
+individuals among the heathen are scarcely ever alluded to. _National_
+servants or _tributaries_, are spoken of frequently, but so rarely are
+their _domestic_ servants alluded to, no necessity existed, even if they
+were slaves, for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being
+domestics, under _heathen laws and usages_, proclaimed their
+_liabilities_; their locality told their condition; so that in applying
+to them the word _Ebed_, there would be no danger of being
+misunderstood. But if the Israelites had not only _servants_, but
+besides these, a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning slave_, 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 _without_
+and the _within_, not of _persons_, but of _usages_. The fact that the
+Hebrew language had no words corresponding to _slave_ and _slavery_,
+though not a conclusive argument, is no slight corroborative.
+
+
+
+II. "FOREVER."--"They shall be your bondmen _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 _individual_ service, proclaims the _permanence_
+of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that
+their _permanent domestics_ should be of the _Strangers_, and not of the
+Israelites; and it declares the duration of that general provision. As
+if God had said, "You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ 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 of
+the Hebrew words, which, in our version, are translated, "_They shall be
+your bondmen forever_."
+
+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
+_heathen_ (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 _class_ of
+persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the
+_way_ in which they were to get them. That "_forever_" refers to the
+permanent relations of a _community_, rather than to the services of
+_individuals_, is a fair inference from the form of the expression,
+"THEY shall be your possession. Ye shall take _them_ as an inheritance
+for your children to inherit them for a possession." To say nothing of
+the uncertainty of _these individuals_ surviving those _after_ whom they
+are to live, the language used, applies more naturally to a _body_ of
+people, than to _individual_ servants.
+
+But suppose it otherwise; still _perpetual_ service could not be argued
+from the term _forever_. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter,
+limit it absolutely by the jubilee. "_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_ ALL _your
+land." "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty
+throughout all the land unto_ ALL _the inhabitants thereof_."
+
+It may be objected that "inhabitants" here means _Israelitish_
+inhabitants alone. The command is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the
+land unto ALL _the inhabitants thereof_." Besides, in the sixth verse,
+there is an enumeration of the different classes of the inhabitants, in
+which servants and strangers are included. "_And the Sabbath of the land
+shall be meet for_ YOU--[For whom? For you _Israelites_ only?]--_for
+thee, and for thy_ SERVANT, _and for thy maid, and for thy hired
+servant, and for thy_ STRANGER _that sojourneth with thee_."
+
+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
+_Jews_ only? Were they the 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
+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."
+_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 _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_. 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.
+
+Finally, even if _forever_ did refer to the length of _individual_
+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
+_Jewish_ servants were held, who refused to go out in the _seventh_
+year. And all admit that their term of service did not go beyond the
+jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17.
+
+The 23d verse of the same chapter is quoted to prove that "_forever_" in
+the 46th verse, extends beyond the jubilee. "_The land shall not be
+sold_ FOREVER, _for the land is mine_"--as it would hardly be used in
+different senses in the same general connection. In reply, we repeat
+that _forever_ respects the duration of the _general arrangement_, and
+not that of _individual service_. 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 _Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that
+may be. Whereas in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning _cutting
+off_, or _to be cut off_.
+
+
+
+III. "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 _nations_, and not to the _individual_
+servants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, that
+servants could not be held as a _property_-possession, and inheritance;
+that they became servants of their _own accord_, and were paid wages;
+that they were released by law from their regular labor nearly _half the
+days in each year_, and thoroughly _instructed_; that the servants were
+_protected_ 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 _just such a condition_! Alas, for
+that soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!"
+Truly, emphasis is cadence, and euphony and irony have met 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 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, _provided_ it sustains their
+practices.
+
+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 _articles of property_. _Nahal_ and
+_Nahala_--_inherit_ and _inheritance_. See 2 Chronicles x. 16. "The
+people answered the king and said, What portion have we in David, and we
+have none _inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." Did they mean gravely to
+disclaim the holding of their king as an article of _property?_ Psalms
+cxxvii. 3--"Lo, children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord."
+Exodus xxxiv. 9--"Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine
+_inheritance_." When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as his
+children, does he make them _articles of property?_ Are forgiveness, and
+chattel-making, synonymes? Psalms cxix. 111--"Thy testimonies have I
+taken as a _heritage_ (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 _inheritance_; _I_ am their
+_inheritance_." Psalms ii. 8--"Ask of me, and I will give thee the
+heathen for thine _inheritance_." Psalms xciv. 14--"For the Lord will
+not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his _inheritance_." See
+also Deuteronomy iv. 20; Joshua xiii. 33; Chronicles x. 16; Psalms
+lxxxii. 8, and lxxviii. 62, 71; Proverbs xiv. 8.
+
+The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY--"_possession_," has
+been already discussed--(See p. 36)--we need add in this place but a
+word. _Ahusa_ rendered "_possession_." Genesis xlii. 11--"And Joseph
+placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a _possession_ in the
+land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as
+Pharaoh had commanded."
+
+In what sense was the land of Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites?
+Answer, In the sense of, _having it to live in_. In what sense were the
+Israelites to _possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an
+_inheritance for their children?_ We 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--a national usage respecting them, having the certainty and
+regularity of a descent by inheritance_. 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 _them_ shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover
+of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_
+shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat
+in your land, and _they_ shall be your permanent resource," (for
+household servants.) "And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ provision
+for your children after you, to hold as a _constant source of supply_.
+ALWAYS _of them_ shall ye serve yourselves."
+
+
+
+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.
+
+From the fact that only _one_ class of the servants is called _hired_,
+it is sagely inferred that servants of the _other_ class were _not paid_
+for their labor. That is, that while God thundered anathemas against
+those who "used their neighbor's service _without wages_," 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 _strangers_ and the _common_ people. The inference
+that "_hired_" is synonimous with _paid_, and that those servants not
+_called_ "hired" were _not paid_ for their labor, is a _mere
+assumption_.
+
+The meaning of the English verb _to hire_, is, as every one knows, to
+procure for a temporary use at a curtain price--to engage a person to
+_temporary_ service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew
+word "_Saukar_." _Temporary_ service, and generally for a _specific_
+object, is inseparable from its meaning. It is never used when the
+procurement of _permanent_ service, for a long period, is spoken of.
+Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who constituted an
+integral and stationary part of the family, have been designated by the
+same term that marks _temporary_ 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 _regular_ work. Whatever is _occasional_ merely, as the washing
+of a family, is done by persons _hired expressly for the purpose_. In
+such families, the familiar distinction between the two classes, is
+"servants," or "domestics," and "hired help," (not _paid_ help.) _Both_
+classes are _paid_. One is permanent, the other occasional and
+temporary, and therefore in this case called "_hired_." To suppose a
+servant robbed of his earnings, because when spoken of, he is not called
+a _hired_ servant, is profound induction! If I employ a man at twelve
+dollars a month to work my farm, he is my _"hired"_ man, but if, instead
+of giving him so much a month, I _give him such a portion of the crop_,
+or in other words, if he works my farm _"on shares,"_ he is no longer my
+_hired_ man. Every farmer knows that _that_ 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 _hired_ laborer. Now, as the technic
+_"hired"_ 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 _"hired"_ laborer,
+I _rob_ 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.
+
+
+
+A variety of particulars are recorded in the Bible, distinguishing
+_hired_ from _bought_ 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. _"Bought"_ servants were paid in advance, (a reason for
+their being called, _bought_,) and those that went out at the seventh
+year received a _gratuity_ at the close of their period of service.
+Deut. xv. 12-13. (2.) The hired servant was paid _in money_, the bought
+servant received his _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and the
+product of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The _hired_ servant _lived
+by himself_, in his own family. The _bought_ servant was a part of his
+master's family. (4.) The _hired_ servant supported his family out of
+his wages; the _bought_ servant and his family, were supported by the
+master _besides_ his wages.
+
+
+
+A careful investigation of the condition of "_hired_" and of "_bought_"
+servants, shows that the latter were, _as a class, superior to the
+former_--were more trust-worthy, had greater privileges, and occupied in
+every respect (_other_ things being equal) a higher station in society.
+(1.) _They were intimately incorporated with the family of the master_.
+They were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which
+hired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Exod. xii. 43, 45. (2)
+_Their interests were far more identified with the general interests of
+their masters' family._ 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 _heir_, come let us kill him, _that the inheritance may be ours_."
+Luke xx. 14; also Mark xii. 7. In no instance on Bible record, does a
+_hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. (3.) _Marriages took place
+between servants and their master's daughters_. "Now Sheshan had no
+sons, but daughters: and Sheshan had a _servant_, 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 _hired_ servant
+forming such an alliance.
+
+(4.) _Bought servants and their descendants seem to have been regarded
+with the same affection and respect as the other members of the
+family[A]._ 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 _hired_ servants and their
+masters. Their untrustworthiness seems to have been proverbial. See John
+ix. 12, 13.
+
+None but the _lowest class_ 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.
+
+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 _hired_ servant thus distinguished. In some cases, the
+_bought_ 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 _himself_ 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,
+_for all the goods of his master were under his hand_." 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 _disposal of property_. 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 _discretionary_ power, was "accused of wasting his master's
+goods." and manifestly regulated with his master's debtors, the _terms_
+of settlement. Such trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.
+
+The inferior condition of _hired_ 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 _hired_ servants." It need not be remarked, that if
+_hired_ servants were the _superior_ 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
+_climbs_; 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, _the lowest place_, I can abide no
+other." Or in those inimitable words, "_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_ HIRED _servants_." The supposition that _hired_
+servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of
+winning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student of
+the Bible, that _one_ 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 _hired_ 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 _humility_, put it on stilts,
+and set it a strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in
+apeing it.
+
+Here let it be observed, that both Israelites and Strangers, belonged
+indiscriminately to _each_ class of the servants, the _bought_ and the
+_hired_. 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 _hired_ servants, has been already
+shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,
+merely _political_ and _national_, the hired servants from the
+_Israelites_, were more favored than either the hired, or the bought
+servants from the _Strangers_. 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].
+
+[Footnote A: Both classes may with propriety be called _permanent_
+servants; even the bought Israelite, when his six-years' service is
+contrasted with the brief term of the hired servant.]
+
+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.
+
+For various reasons, this class, (the servants bought from the
+Strangers,) would prefer a _long_ 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 _possession_ of
+one's inheritance, _after_ the division of the paternal domain, or to be
+restrained from its _control_, 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], 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 _Stranger_ to _prolong_ 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.
+
+[Footnote 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 _graduated_ 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 _becoming servants_
+proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the labor of _a
+course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]
+
+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 _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 _permanent employment_,
+pursued not merely as a _means_ of bettering their own condition, and
+prospectively that of their posterity, but also, as an _end_ for its own
+sake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not
+otherwise attainable.
+
+We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are
+called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_, as our
+translators have it.) (1.) They followed it as a _permanent business_.
+(2.) Their term of service was _much longer_ 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 _tributaries_ to the Israelites--required to pay an annual tribute
+to the government, either in money, or in public service, which was
+called a "_tribute of bond-service_;" in other words, all the Strangers
+were _national servants_, to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word
+which is used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates
+_national_ 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 _kinds_ of service
+assigned to each class. The servants from the Strangers, were properly
+the _domestics_, 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 _agricultural_. 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, "_And behold Saul came after the herd
+out of the field_."--1 Sam. xi. 7.
+
+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, _was "threshing wheat_
+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 _protected and supported by the fundamental law_
+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 _Jewish_
+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 _unjew_ 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.
+
+_To guard this and another fundamental distinction_, God instituted the
+regulation contained in Leviticus xxv. 39, 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 _servants'
+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 _servitude_," (or _menial_ labor.) In the Septuagint
+thus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a _domestic or
+household servant_." 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]." In fine,
+"thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," means, _thou
+shalt not assign him to the same grade, nor put him to the same
+services, with permanent domestics._
+
+[Footnote 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."]
+
+We pass to the remainder of the regulation in the 40th verse:--
+
+"_But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with thee_."
+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 _keeping back their wages_.
+
+To have taken away these privileges in the case stated in the passage
+under consideration, would have been preeminent _rigor_; 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 _assignment_ of his inheritance, but was, as a servant,
+working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its possession
+and control[A]. But it was that of _the head of a family_, 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
+_Israelite--Abraham is his father_, 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 _grade_ of service filled only by those whose
+permanent business was _serving_, would have been to _rule over him with
+peculiar rigor_.
+
+[Footnote A: These two latter classes are evidently referred to in Exod.
+xxi. 1-6, and Deut. xv. 12]
+
+Finally, the former part of the regulation, "Thou shalt not compel him
+to serve as a bond-servant," or more literally, _thou shall not serve
+thyself with him, with the service of a servant_, 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 _hired_ 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 _bought_ 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 _alleviate_ as
+much as possible the calamity which had reduced him from independence
+and authority, to penury and subjection.
+
+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. "_Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear
+thy God_." 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, _irrespective_ 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 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, _rigorous_ 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.
+
+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 _social_ estimation, in which this class of
+servants was held. They were regarded according to their character and
+worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin, employments,
+and political condition.
+
+The common construction put upon the expression, "_rule with rigor_,"
+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
+_Israelites, it permitted and commissioned_ the infliction of them upon
+the _Strangers_. 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!
+
+In Exodus, chap. i. 13, 14, it is said that the Egyptians "made the
+children of Israel to _serve_ with rigor," "and all their _service_
+wherein they made them _serve_, was with rigor." The rigor here spoken
+of, is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted from them, and the
+_mode_ of the exaction. This form of expression, "_serve with rigor_,"
+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. _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 national and political disabilities as the
+latter.
+
+
+
+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 _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. All were released
+from their regular labor 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 _men_, with the
+rights, interests, hopes, and destinies of _men_. In these respects the
+circumstances of _all_ classes of servants among the Israelites, were
+not only similar but _identical_, and so far forth, they formed but ONE
+CLASS.
+
+II. DIFFERENT CLASSES OF SERVANTS.
+
+1. _Hired Servants_.--This class consisted both of Israelites and
+Strangers. Their employments were different. The _Israelite_, was an
+agricultural servant. The Stranger was a _domestic_ and _personal_
+servant, and in some instances _mechanical_; both were _occasional_,
+procured _temporally_ to serve an emergency. Both lived in their own
+families, their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work
+was done. As a _class of servants_, the hired were less loved, trusted,
+honored and promoted than any other.
+
+2. _Bought Servants, (including those "born in the house.")_--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], and neither was temporary.
+
+[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, 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.]
+
+The Israelitish servant, in most instances, was released after six
+years. (The _freeholder_ continued until the jubilee.) The Stranger, was
+a _permanent_ 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 _one_ class of the Jewish bought servants was a
+marked exception. The _freeholder_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+I. It should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the
+Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal natural and
+religious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed
+by those of their own people, who were _not_ 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 _Israelitish_ servants, _were theirs_. 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.
+
+
+
+II. The disabilities of the servants from the Strangers, were
+exclusively _political_ and _national_.
+
+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 prosperity and even to the existence of the state,
+other employments were in far less repute, and deemed _unjewish_.
+
+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 _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_.
+
+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--_all were protected equally with the
+descendants of Abraham._
+
+
+
+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 _descendant of Abraham_ and a _Stranger_, 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, _"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."_ In this case, the Israelitish servant, whose term
+expired in six years, married one of his master's _permanent female
+domestics_; but the fact of her marriage, did not release her master
+from _his_ 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 _grade_ and _term_ of service. Her
+marriage did not impair her obligation to fulfil _her_ 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 _their_ 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.
+
+
+
+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
+_death_, and at the same time to perpetual _slavery_, 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, _be it remembered_, the Mosaic law was given, while Israel was _in
+the wilderness_, and only _one_ statute was ever given respecting _the
+disposition to be made of the inhabitants of the land._ If the sentence
+of death was first pronounced against them, and afterwards _commuted_,
+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 _enslave_ 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 _man_--intelligent
+accountable, guilty _man,_ 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 _slave,_
+cheapens to nothing _universal human nature,_ and instead of healing a
+wound, gives a death stab. What! repair an injury done to rational being
+in the robbery of _one_ of its rights, not merely by robbing it of
+_all,_ but by annihilating the very _foundation_ of them--that
+everlasting distinction between men and things? To make a man a chattel,
+is not the _punishment,_ but the _annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and,
+so far as it goes, of _all_ 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
+_doctrines_.
+
+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 _individuals,_ or merely of the _body politic?_ Ans.
+The Hebrew word _Haram,_ to destroy, signifies _national,_ as well as
+individual destruction; _political_ existence, equally with _personal;_
+the destruction of governmental organization, equally with the lives of
+the subjects. Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume,
+overthrow, &c., to mean _personal_ 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?
+
+For a clue to the sense in which the word _"destroy"_ is used, see
+Exodus xxiii. 27. "I will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt
+come, and I will make all thine enemies _turn their backs unto thee_."
+Here "_all their enemies_" were to _turn their backs_, and "_all the
+people_" to be "_destroyed_". Does this mean that God would let all
+their _enemies_ escape, but kill all their _friends_, or that he would
+_first_ kill "all the people" and THEN make them turn their backs in
+flight, an army of runaway corpses?
+
+The word rendered _backs_, is in the original, _necks_, and the passage
+_may_ mean, I will make all your enemies turn their necks unto you; that
+is, be _subject to you as tributaries_, become _denationalized_, their
+civil polity, state organization, political existence,
+_destroyed_--their idolatrous temples, altars, images, groves, and all
+heathen rites _destroyed_; in a word, their whole system, national,
+political, civil, and religious, subverted, and the whole people _put
+under tribute_. Again; if these commands required the unconditional
+destruction of all the _individuals_ 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 _stranger or a sojourner_, that he may
+live with thee." "Thou shalt not oppress a _stranger_." "Thou shalt not
+vex a _stranger_." "Judge righteously between every, man and his
+brother, and the _stranger_ that is with him." "Ye shall not respect
+persons in judgement." "Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the
+_stranger_, 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 _same law_ authorize and appoint the _individual
+extermination_ of those very persons, whose lives and general interests
+it so solicitously protects? These laws were given to the Israelites,
+long _before_ they entered Canaan; and they must of necessity have
+inferred from them, that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land
+would _continue in it_, under their government.
+
+3. _We argue that these commands did not require the_ INDIVIDUAL
+_destruction of the Canaanites unconditionally, from the fact that the
+most pious Israelites never seem to have so regarded them._ 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. For not obeying, in
+_every particular,_ and in a _single_ instance, God's command respecting
+the Amalekites, Saul was rejected from being king.
+
+Now, if God commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaanitish
+nations, Joshua _disobeyed him in every instance._ For at his death, the
+Israelites still _"dwelt among them,"_ 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 _stood not a man_ of _all_ their enemies
+before them." "The Lord delivered _all their_ enemies into their hand,"
+&c.
+
+How can this testimony be reconciled with itself, if we suppose that the
+command to _destroy_ enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the
+command to _drive out_, enjoined the unconditional expulsion of
+individuals from the country, rather than their expulsion from the
+_possession_ or _ownership_ 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]. 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
+_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
+the performance of idolatrous rites, the _military forces_, 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 _tributaries_ 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[B]. 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 _utterly destroy_ 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 _utterly destroyed_ the Amalekites."
+
+[Footnote 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 _exterminate all the Canaanites,_
+their pledge to save them alive, was neither a repeal of the statute,
+nor absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ 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 _had_ passed their
+word to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding upon them than
+God's command? So Saul seems to have passed _his_ 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 _remaining in any of the coasts of Israel_
+let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. 2 Samuel xxii. 1-6.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+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 _all been_ UTTERLY
+DESTROYED!
+
+Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be quoted against the preceding view.
+"_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_." We argue that this
+command to exterminate, did not include all the individuals of the
+Canaanitish nations, but only the inhabitants of the _cities_, (and even
+those conditionally,) for the following reasons.
+
+I. Only the inhabitants of _cities_ are specified,--"of the _cities_ 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,--"_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 _around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God permitted, and
+even commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact
+with _any_ of them would be perilous--with the inhabitants of the
+_cities_ peculiarly, and of the _Canaanitish_ cities preeminently so.
+
+It will be seen from the 10th and 11th verses, that those cities which
+accepted the offer of peace were to be spared. "_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_
+TRIBUTARIES _unto thee, and they shall_ SERVE thee."--Deuteronomy xx.
+10, 11. These verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in
+which cities were to be summoned to surrender.
+
+1. The offer of peace--if it was accepted, the inhabitants became
+_tributaries_--if it was rejected, and they came out against Israel in
+battle, the _men_ 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 _afar off_. 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
+_whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with the 10th verse,
+whereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the
+verses immediately preceding, viz. the 12th, 13th, and 14th, and thus
+make a distinction between those _Canaanitish_ cities that _fought_, and
+the cities _afar off_ that fought--in one case destroying the males and
+females, and in the other, the _males_ only. The offer of peace, and the
+_conditional preservation_, were as really guarantied to _Canaanitish_
+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_." Joshua xix. 19, 20.--"_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_." That is, if they had _not_ come out against Israel in
+battle, they would have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been
+"_destroyed utterly_"
+
+The great design of God seems to have been to _transfer the territory_
+of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute
+sovereignty in every respect_; 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]; 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.
+"_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;_ THEN SHALL THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY
+PEOPLE."
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+[The preceding Inquiry is merely an _outline_. Whoever _reads_ 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 _indices_, 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.]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+No. 4.
+
+
+
+THE
+
+
+ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+THE
+
+
+BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+
+
+AN INQUIRY INTO THE
+
+
+
+PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS
+
+
+ON THE SUBJECT OF
+
+HUMAN RIGHTS.
+
+Third Edition--Revised.
+
+
+NEW YORK:
+
+PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.
+
+1838.
+
+This periodical contains 5 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 7 1-2 cts;
+over 100 miles, 12 1-2 cts.
+
+_Please read and circulate._
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+    DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,
+
+
+        Negative,
+
+        Affirmative,
+
+        Legal,
+
+
+    THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY
+
+
+        "Thou shalt not steal,"
+
+        "Thou shalt not covet,"
+
+
+    MAN-STEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,
+
+
+        Separation of man from brutes and things,
+
+
+    IMPORT OF "BUY" AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY,"
+
+
+        Servants sold themselves,
+
+
+    RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SERVANTS,
+
+    SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY,
+
+
+        Runaway Servants not to be delivered to their Masters,
+
+
+    SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES,
+
+    MASTERS NOT "OWNERS,"
+
+
+        Servants not subjected to the uses of property,
+
+        Servants expressly distinguished from property,
+
+        Examination of Gen. xii. 5.--"The souls that they had
+        gotten," &c.
+
+        Social equality of Servants and Masters,
+
+        Condition of the Gibeonites as subjects of the Hebrew
+        Commonwealth,
+
+        Egyptian Bondage analyzed,
+
+
+    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+    "CURSED BE CANAAN," &c.--EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,
+
+    "FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &c.--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 20, 21,
+
+    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44-46,
+
+
+        "Both thy BONDMEN, &c., shall be of the heathen,"
+
+        "They shall be your bondmen FOREVER,"
+
+        "Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE," &c.
+
+
+    EXAMINATION OF LEV. XXV. 39, 40.--THE FREEHOLDER NOT TO "SERVE
+    AS A BOND SERVANT,"
+
+
+        Difference between Hired and Bought Servants,
+
+        Bought Servants the most favored and honored class,
+
+        Israelites and Strangers belonged to both classes,
+
+        Israelites servants to the Strangers,
+
+        Reasons for the release of the Israelitish Servants in
+        the seventh year,
+
+        Reasons for assigning the Strangers to a longer service,
+
+        Reasons for calling them _the_ Servants,
+
+        Different kinds of service assigned to the Israelites
+        and Strangers,
+
+
+    REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF
+    EACH,
+
+
+        Political disabilities of the Strangers,
+
+
+    EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2-6.--"IF THOU BUY AN HEBREW SERVANT,"
+
+    THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION,
+
+
+
+
+
+THE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+
+
+DEFINITION OF SLAVERY.
+
+If we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must determine
+_what slavery is_. A constituent 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. 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.
+
+1. _Privation of suffrage._ Then minors are slaves.
+
+2. _Ineligibility to office._ Then females are slaves.
+
+3. _Taxation without representation._ Then slaveholders in the District
+of Columbia are slaves.
+
+4. _Privation of one's oath in law._ Then disbelievers in a future
+retribution are slaves.
+
+5. _Privation of trial by jury._ Then all in France and Germany are
+slaves.
+
+6. _Being required to support a particular religion._ Then the people of
+England are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all other
+disabilities, merely _political_.]
+
+7. _Cruelty and oppression._ Wives, children, and hired domestics are
+often oppressed; but these forms of cruelty are not slavery.
+
+8. _Apprenticeship._ The rights and duties of master and apprentice are
+correlative and reciprocal. The claim of each upon the other results
+from his _obligation_ 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
+_just_ to the master, it is _benevolent_ 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 _right_ 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 _equally_ 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?
+
+9. _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 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.
+
+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 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 _property_ be guilty? Are chattels
+punished?
+
+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 society, warp and woof. Are they slavery? then
+civilized society is a giant slave--a government of LAW, _the climax of
+slavery,_ and its executive, a king among slaveholders.
+
+12. _Compulsory service._ A juryman is empannelled against his will, and
+sit he must. A sheriff orders his posse; bystanders _must_ turn in. Men
+are _compelled_ 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 _condition_. The slave's
+_feelings_ 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 _make_ him a chattel, or make those
+guiltless who _hold_ 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
+_consent_ 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.
+
+Many of the foregoing conditions are _appendages_ of slavery. But no
+one, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging
+element.
+
+We proceed to state affirmatively that, ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM
+TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY--making free agents, chattels--converting
+_persons_ into _things_--sinking immortality, into _merchandize_. A
+_slave_ is one held in this condition. In law, "he owns nothing, and can
+acquire nothing." His right to himself is abrogated. If he say _my_
+hands, _my_ feet, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY _self_, they are figures of
+speech. To use _himself_ for his own good, is a CRIME. To keep what he
+_earns_, is stealing. To take his body into his own keeping, is
+_insurrection_. In a word, the _profit_ of his master is made the END of
+his being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end--a _mere means_ to an end
+into which his interests do not enter, of which they constitute no
+portion[A]. MAN, sunk to a _thing!_ the intrinsic element, the
+_principle_ of slavery; MEN, bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed,
+invoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on executions, and
+knocked off at public outcry! Their _rights_, 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, _the reduction of persons to things;_ not
+robbing a man of privileges, but of _himself_; not loading with burdens,
+but making him a _beast of burden_; not _restraining_ liberty, but
+subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them; not
+inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not
+exacting involuntary labor, but sinking him into an _implement_ 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 _thing_!
+
+[Footnote A: Whatever system sinks men from an END to a mere _means_,
+just so far makes him a _slave_. 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 _mere means_, a _slave_. 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.]
+
+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 _things_--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.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+Having stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE
+BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A] "To the _law_ and the _testimony_?"
+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.
+_Two_ 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 _him_. That they are _his own_, is proved
+from the fact that God has given them to _him alone_,--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 _use_ 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
+_use_. The right to use according to will, is _itself_ 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 _relative_ to this, is
+derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the
+_foundation right_--the _post is the middle_, 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 _a man belongs to himself_--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 _man_ 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 _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of
+_his own_; and yet in the act of making a man a slave, the slaveholder
+_asserts_ the validity of his own title, while he seizes him as his
+property who has the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he
+does not merely disfranchise the humanity of _one_ individual, but of
+UNIVERSAL MAN. He destroys the foundations. He annihilates _all rights_.
+He attacks not only the human race, but _universal being_, and rushes
+upon JEHOVAH. For rights are _rights_; God's are no more--man's are no
+less.
+
+[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral
+character. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records
+without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob
+and his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and
+concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent
+entry_ God's _endorsement_? Because the Bible in its catalogue of human
+actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write
+against it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach
+into a virtue?]
+
+The eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any part_ of that which
+belongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which
+prohibits the taking of _any_ thing from him, sanction the taking of
+_every_ thing? Does it thunder wrath against him who robs his neighbor
+of a _cent_, yet bid God speed to him who robs his neighbor of
+_himself_? Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the eighth
+commandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to take the
+_earner_, 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 _tenth_ adds, "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 _tempt_ to
+it. Who ever made human beings slaves, without _coveting_ 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 _desire_ 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.--_Ten_ commandments constitute the brief compend of
+human duty.--_Two_ of these brand slavery as sin.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+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--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. _"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.
+Deut. xxiv. 7[A]. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance
+to the Mosaic system!
+
+[Footnote 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, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_,
+the person compelling him but once to do so shall die as a thief,
+whether he has sold him or not."]
+
+The word _Ganabh_ here rendered _stealeth_, means the taking what
+_belongs_ to another, whether by violence or fraud; the same word is
+used in the eighth commandment, and prohibits both _robbery_ and theft.
+
+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
+_servant, not_ "he that stealeth a _man_." If the crime had been the
+taking an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have
+been expressive of that relation, and most especially if it was the
+relation of property and _proprietor_!
+
+The crime is stated in a three-fold form--man _stealing_, _selling_, and
+_holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one penalty--DEATH.
+This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of a man, is the _man
+himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said, "Indeed I was
+_stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. How
+_stolen?_ His brethren sold him as an article of merchandize. Contrast
+this penalty for _man_-stealing with that for _property_-stealing, Ex.
+xxii. If a man had stolen an _ox_ 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 _man_, the _first_ 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
+_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-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 _property value_ 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 branding,
+nor even _stripes_, but double of _the same kind._ Why was not the rule
+uniform? When a _man_ 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 _have_ them? So the
+ox-thief might not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, five. But if
+God permitted men to hold _men_ 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 _man_ 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 _money!_ 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, 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."
+
+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 _that_ 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 _property,_ by putting him on a level with it?
+
+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 _nature_ of the article
+but in shifting its relation from him to me. But when I take my neighbor
+himself, and first make him _property_, and then _my_ 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
+_personality_ into _property_. 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 _nature_ 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 _parent,_ it struck the smiter dead. The parental relation is the
+_centre_ of human society. God guards it with peculiar care. To violate
+that, is to violate all. Whoever trampled on that, 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.
+
+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. "_Honor thy father and thy mother_," 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 _man_, but a _parent_--a _distinction_
+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 _immortal nature,_ blotting out a sacred _distinction_,
+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.
+
+"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, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD,
+CREATED HE HIM. 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,
+"_Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for_ 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.)
+"_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels._" Slavery drags him
+down among _brutes_. (2.) "_And hast crowned him with glory and honor._"
+Slavery tears off his crown, and puts on a _yoke_. (3.) "_Thou madest
+him to have dominion_ OVER _the works of thy hands._" Slavery breaks the
+sceptre, and casts him down _among_ those works--yea _beneath them_.
+(4.) "_Thou hast put all things under his feet._" 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, "_Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it
+unto_ ME."
+
+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 _legal_ forms of Divine
+institutions previously existing. As a _system_, the latter alone is of
+Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs, God has
+not made them our exemplars[A].
+
+[Footnote 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 _concubinage_,
+winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, 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.]
+
+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.
+
+
+
+IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY."
+
+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 the terms
+themselves. How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be
+proved were always _assumed_. 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 _now_ used is the _inspired_ sense, David says, "I prevented
+the dawning of the morning, and cried." What, stop the earth in its
+revolution! Two hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in its strict
+Latin sense to _come before_, or _anticipate_. 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
+_opposite_ to their present meaning. A few examples follow: "I purposed
+to come to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the four
+_beasts_ (living ones) fell down and worshipped God,"--"Whosoever shall
+_offend_ (cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--"Go out into the
+highways and _compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--"Only let your
+_conversation_ (habitual conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,"--"They
+that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me,"--"So when tribulation
+or persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (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 _now_. 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 _now_, they _must_
+have been in Canaan and Padanaram four thousand years ago!
+
+The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of
+servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the
+fallacy, that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or
+whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of
+your paying for it _proves_ 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 _buy_ is still used to
+describe the transaction. Does this prove that their first-born were, or
+are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really as were _servants_.
+(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 _bought_ their
+wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "So Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon,
+have I _purchased_ to be my wife." Ruth iv. 10. Hosea bought his wife.
+"So I _bought_ 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 _real_ 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 _medium_ 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 _wives_, their
+husbands and masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3,
+27. If _buying_ servants proves them property, buying wives proves them
+property. 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? 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."
+
+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 _marriages_ in the old German
+Chronicles was, "A BOUGHT B."
+
+The word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the nature
+of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, "I have _gotten_
+(bought) a man of the Lord." She named him Cain, that is _bought_. "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 _buy_)
+the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. "He brought them to this
+mountain which his right hand had _purchased_," (gotten.) Jer. xiii. 4.
+"Take the girdle that thou hast got" (bought.) Neh. v. 8. "We of our
+ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren that were sold to the
+heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons reduced to
+servitude, but to those taken _out_ of it. Prov. 8. 22. "The Lord
+possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way." Prov. xix. 8. "He
+that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Finally, to _buy_
+is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word _Kana_.
+
+Even at this day the word _buy_ 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
+"_bought_" 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 _indenture_ in Illinois, servants
+now are "_bought._"[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" _out_ 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 _bought_ him." Sir
+Robert Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it,
+can _buy_ him," and John Randolph said, "The northern delegation is in
+the market, give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them;" both meant just
+what they said. The temperance publications tell us that candidates for
+office _buy_ men with whiskey; and the oracles of street tattle that the
+court, district attorney, and jury, in the late trial of Robinson were
+_bought_, yet we have no floating visions of "chattels personal," man
+auctions, or coffles.
+
+[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the free state of
+Illinois--No negro, mulatto, or Indian shall at any time _purchase_ any
+servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the persons
+aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such servant
+shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and taken.]
+
+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 _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain
+that neither party regarded the persons _bought_ 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 _value
+received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft of their
+personal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of
+_services_ (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in
+Scripture usage, _buying the persons_. 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," _sold themselves_, and
+of their own accord. (2.) Obtaining permanently the _services_ 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 _third_ persons; and thence infers that they were articles of
+property. Both the alleged fact and the inference are sheer
+_assumptions_. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in
+which a _master sold his servant_. That servants who were "bought" _sold
+themselves_ is a fair inference from various passages of Scripture.
+
+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 _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word, which, in verse 47, is
+rendered _sell himself_, is in verse 39 of the same chapter, rendered
+_be sold_; 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 "_be sold_" without
+_being bought_? Our translation makes it nonsense. The word _Makar_
+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 _offer yourselves_ 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 _sold thyself_ to work evil." "There was
+none like to Ahab that _sold himself_ to work wickedness."--2 Kings
+xvii. 17. "They used divination and enchantments, and _sold themselves_
+to do evil."--Isa. l. 1. "For your iniquities have ye _sold
+yourselves_." Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have _sold yourselves_ 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 _third_ persons. If _servants_
+were bought of third persons, it is strange that no _instance_ of it is
+on record.
+
+
+
+II.--THE LEADING DESIGN OF THE LAWS RELATING TO SERVANTS, WITH THE
+RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO THEM.
+
+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
+_servants_. While the master's interests were guarded from injury, those
+of the servants were _promoted_. 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 _privileges_ and
+_favors_.
+
+I. No servant from the Strangers, could remain in the family of an
+Israelite without becoming a proselyte. Compliance with this condition
+was the _price of the privilege_.--Gen. xvii. 9-14, 23, 27.
+
+II. Excommunication from the family was a PUNISHMENT.--Gen. xxi. 14.
+Luke xvi. 2-4.
+
+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 _demanded_ it, the law
+_obliged_ the master to retain him, however little he might need his
+services. Deut. xv. 12-17. Ex. xxi. 2-6.
+
+IV. The rights and privileges guarantied by law to all servants.
+
+1. _They were admitted into covenant with God._ Deut. xxix. 10-13.
+
+2. _They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals._
+Ex. xii. 43-44; Deut. xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16.
+
+3. _They were statedly instructed in morality and religion._ Deut. xxxi.
+10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35; 2 Chron. xvii. 8-9.
+
+4. _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.
+
+(a.) The Law secured to them the _whole of every seventh year;_ Lev.
+xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who were servants during the entire
+period between the jubilees, _eight whole years,_ including the jubilee
+year, of unbroken rest.
+
+(b.) _Every seventh day._ This in forty-two years, the eight being
+subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just _six years._
+
+(c.) _The three annual festivals._ The _Passover_, 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 _festival week_, 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 _nine weeks
+annually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the
+Sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.
+
+(d.) _The new moons._ The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says that the
+Jews always kept _two_ 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.
+
+(e.) _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and
+of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.
+
+(f.) _The atonement day_. On the tenth of the seventh month. Lev. xxiii.
+27.
+
+These two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not
+reckoned above.
+
+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 _fractions_ to the
+objector, we have left out those numerous _local_ festivals to which
+frequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; I Sam. ix. etc., and the
+various _family_ 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.
+
+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 _every day_, the
+servants would have to themselves nearly _one half of each day_.
+
+THIS IS A REGULATION OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY
+SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.
+
+V. The servant was protected by law equally with the other members of
+the community.
+
+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."
+
+VI. The Mosaic system enjoined the greatest affection and kindness
+toward servants, foreign as well as Jewish.
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+
+
+III.--DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE THEY MADE
+SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?
+
+We argue that they became servants _of their own accord_.
+
+I. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to
+abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God[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 _forced_ through all these processes?
+Was the renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into
+covenant with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_?
+Were they _compelled_ 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 _driven_
+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 _servant_, was to become a
+_proselyte_. 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 _merchandise_? Were _proselyte and chattel_ synonymes, in the
+Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into
+covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and
+the sole passport to the communion of the saints?
+
+[Footnote 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."
+
+"But he that is in the _house_ 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 _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown
+slave, and he be _unwilling_, 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 _refuse_ 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.
+
+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
+_full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his
+expenses. But that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign
+servant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of
+an Israelite), of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a
+mere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic
+system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_.
+Whether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes
+not within the scope of this inquiry. ]
+
+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."
+
+As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the
+_right_ of the master to hold him; his _fleeing_ shows his
+_choice_--proclaims his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall
+not force him back and thus recognize the _right_ 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 _heathen_ 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 _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the
+heathen, and yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice
+of _thousands_ of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A _foreign_
+servant flees to the Israelites; God says, "He shall dwell with thee, in
+that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it _liketh
+him_ best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming into
+Israel of his own accord, had been _dragged_ 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
+_voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the _same_ treatment of the
+_same person_, 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 _begin_ the violence
+_after_ he has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_ on the
+_other side of the line_; 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 _greater_ 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 _him_, uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and
+kindness denied to the multitudes who _were_ circumcised, and _within_
+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
+_master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was
+not, "Thou shalt not deliver him unto his _master_," but "he shall dwell
+with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_ in one of thy gates
+where it liketh _him_ best." Every Israelite was forbidden to put him in
+any condition _against his will_. What was this but a proclamation, that
+all who _chose_ 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 _foreign_ servants merely,
+there was no law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from
+the _Israelites_. _Property_ lost, and _cattle_ 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 _free choice_, 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 _own choice_, as to the place and
+condition of his residence, it is _oppression_."
+
+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
+"_slaves_" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a body of
+slaves is moved any distance in our _republic_, they are hand-cuffed and
+chained together, to keep them from running away, or beating their
+drivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ 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 _handmaids_
+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.
+
+IV. Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance
+of various rites necessarily VOLUNTARY.
+
+Suppose the servants from the heathen had upon entering Jewish families,
+refused circumcision; if _slaves_, how simple the process of
+emancipation! Their _refusal_ 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;" _excommunicated_.
+
+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 _young men_ "born in his house," and many more _not_ 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 _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
+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," _provided_ they had a description
+of the "flesh-marks," and were suitably stimulated by _pieces of
+silver_. 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.
+
+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 _no servants_. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 16. They
+doubtless, served under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into
+Egypt, they _chose_ to stay in their own country. The government might
+sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until their services had made
+good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex. xxii. 3. But _masters_
+seem to have had no power to sell their _servants_. To give the master a
+_right_ 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 _buy_ a servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of
+choice_." 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 _another_ man[A].
+
+[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose
+even the _services_ 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.]
+
+Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were
+bought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ 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."[B]
+
+[Footnote B: 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."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, 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 _money of her purchase_ is the money of her
+espousal."]
+
+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 _choice_ 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 _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to get
+rid of him.
+
+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 _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false
+pretences, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to
+buy them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the
+individuals to _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to
+_refuse all offers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their
+own work_. Suppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become
+servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency?
+NONE.
+
+[Footnote 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, _stands by itself,_ and has nothing to do with the
+condition of servants.]
+
+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?"
+
+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 _bodies_ and
+our lands; _buy us_;" then in the 25th verse, "we will be servants to
+Pharaoh."
+
+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.
+
+XII. The sacrifices and offerings which ALL were required to present,
+were to be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3.
+
+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 _master_. 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.
+
+
+
+IV.--WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?
+
+As the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it
+would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their
+becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they
+_were paid_ for their labor, we argue,
+
+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 _Rea_, translated _neighbor_, 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.
+
+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 _verbatim_ 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! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others
+as we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ 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."
+
+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 _redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been
+forced to sell himself from poverty, he must have acquired considerable
+property _after_ 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]) 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[B]. 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 _owner of a house_. 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
+_servants_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the
+_relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and _now_, yet we have enough to
+warrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value
+_then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing
+a large amount of money? They "_know how to take care of themselves_"
+quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on
+such a _small_ scale, or in the taking of _such things_ 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 _proficients_ in the art, who drive the
+business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their
+betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at
+a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ 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 _Right_ and _Very
+Reverends_! 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
+_situation_, 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 _slay_ one who
+would slay him?"]
+
+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 _husbandmen_ 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?
+
+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 _acquiring_ property to meet these expenditures.
+
+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]." 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 _Israelitish_ servants,
+the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they did not go out in the
+seventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. If the fact that the
+Gentile servants did not receive such a _gratuity_ proves that they were
+robbed of their _earnings_, it proves that the most valued class of
+_Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs also; a conclusion too stubborn
+for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous.
+
+[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as
+follows--"Thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c. "That is to say,
+'_Loading, ye shall load him_,' 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 _you, not
+less than thirty shekels_, which is the valuation of a servant, as
+declared in Ex. xxi. 32."--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec. 3]
+
+VII. The servants were BOUGHT. In other words, they received
+compensation in advance. Having shown, under a previous head, that
+servants _sold themselves_, 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[B], a mere reference to the fact is all
+that is required for the purposes of this argument.
+
+[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and
+boys at thirteen years.]
+
+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.
+
+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 "_do justice_" to others? By doing
+injustice to them? Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by
+keeping back _their own_? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy
+of his hire" by robbing them of _theirs_? 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 _Aristides_ in justice, then illustrious examples,
+patriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway
+against human perverseness!
+
+X. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles_.
+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 _particular_ kind of
+service, _all_ kinds; and a law requiring an abundant provision for the
+wants of an animal ministering to man in a _certain_ 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 a brute_, what would be a meet return for the
+services of _man_?--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?
+
+
+V.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY?
+
+The discussion of this topic has already been somewhat anticipated, but
+a variety of additional considerations remain to be noticed.
+
+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 _servants_ were taken in _no instance_. (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 _not_. 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 _gifts_. 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 _articles of property_, 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 _religion_--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!" "Again, it may be
+objected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If
+that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ 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 _mere property_ if servants are included, it is in such a way, as to
+show that they are not regarded as _property_. See Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But
+when the design is to show not merely the wealth, but the _greatness_ of
+any personage, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word,
+if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if
+_greatness_, 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 _riches_ 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
+_mere property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the
+former. The Hebrew word _Mikne_, is an illustration. It is derived from
+_Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, _a possession, wealth,
+riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament, and is
+applied always to _mere property_, generally to domestic animals, but
+never to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in
+distinction from the _Mikne_.  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 _souls_
+were a part of Abraham's _substance_ (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 "_the souls that they had
+gotten_?" 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] 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[B]. "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."
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+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 _both_ 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
+_servant_ 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 _chiefest
+seat_ at the table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of Kish, Saul's
+father; not the steward or the chief of them--not at all a _picked_ man,
+but "_one_ of the servants;" _any_ 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.
+
+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.) _It was voluntary_. 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.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of
+the Israelites_. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated
+their own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the
+functions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were
+subject to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. 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 _at home_. 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 _national tribute_ to the Israelites, for the
+privilege of residence and protection under their government. No service
+seems to have been required of the _females_. 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 _them_ to the condition of chattels if there was _any_ case
+in which God permitted them to do so.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) The Israelites were not dispersed among
+the families of Egypt[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[B]. Gen.
+xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27. (3.) They lived
+in permanent dwellings. These were _houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 6,
+22, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_, and the lintel of
+the houses are mentioned. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by
+itself_,--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 _tributary_ 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 _there_ 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 _at any one time_. 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 _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_) they
+exacted it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that labor
+was exacted only from the _poorer_ 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[C]! their _only_ clothing for one half the year,
+"_one_ shirt and _one_ pair of pantaloons[D]!" _two hours and a half
+only_, for rest and refreshment in the twenty-four[E]!--their dwellings,
+_hovels_, 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 _all_ their rights, while he
+denounced against them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the
+_far lighter_ 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 _Lawgiver_
+did he _create_ 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?"
+
+[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ servants living in
+their families; these may have been slaves; allusion is made to them in
+Ex. ix. 14, 20, 21.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote C: Law of N.C. Haywood's Manual 524-5.]
+
+
+[Footnote D: Law of La. Martin's Digest, 610.]
+
+
+[Footnote E: Law of La. Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12.]
+
+We now proceed to examine various objections which will doubtless be set
+in array against all the foregoing conclusions.
+
+
+OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+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 _cause_ 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 _Cain-mark_, 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?
+
+
+
+OBJECTION 1. "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto
+his brethren." Gen. ix. 25.
+
+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 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, _assume_ all the
+points in debate. (1.) That _slavery_ was prophesied rather than mere
+_service_ to others, and _individual_ bondage rather than _national_
+subjection and tribute. (2.) That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_
+it; at least absolving those whose crimes fulfill it, if not
+transforming the crimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharoahs might
+have quoted the prophecy _"Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that
+is not theirs, and they shall afflict there four hundred years."_ And
+then, what _saints_ 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 _named_ 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 "_younger_ son" can not be _Canaan_, as he
+was the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham._ We answer,
+whoever that "_younger son_" was, _Canaan_ alone was named in the curse.
+Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies son, grandson, or _any_ of
+_one_ the posterity of an individual. "_Know ye Laban the SON of
+Nahor?_" Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxix. 5. "_Mephibosheth
+the SON of Saul_." 2 Sam. xix. 24. Mephibosheth was the _grandson_ of
+Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. "_There is a SON born to Naomi._" Ruth iv. 17. This
+was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. "_Let seven men of
+his (Saul's) SONS be delivered unto us._" 2 Sam. xxi. 6. Seven of Saul's
+_grandsons_ were delivered up. "_Laban rose up and kissed his SONS._"
+Gen. xxi. 55. These were his _grandsons_. "_The driving of Jehu the SON
+of Nimshi._" 2 Kings ix. 20. Jehu was the _grandson_ of Nimshi. Shall we
+forbid the inspired writer to use the _same_ word when speaking of
+_Noah's_ grandson? Further; Ham was not the "_younger_" son. The order
+of enumeration makes him the _second_ 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
+_rule_, in any other order the _exception_. 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 _Hakkatan_ rendered "the
+_younger_," means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isa. xl.
+22. "_A LITTLE ONE shall become a thousand_." Isa. xxii. 24. "_All
+vessels of SMALL quantity_." Ps. cxv. 13. "_He will bless them that fear
+the Lord both SMALL and great_." Ex. xviii. 22. "_But every SMALL matter
+they shall judge_." It would be a literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if
+it were translated thus. "When Noah knew what his little son[A], or
+grandson (_Beno Hakkatan_) 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 _fraction_ 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 _at home_, we
+answer: _It is false in point of fact_, though zealously bruited often
+to serve a turn; and _if it were true_, how does it help the argument?
+The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be
+_unto his_ BRETHREN," not unto _himself_!
+
+[Footnote A: The French follows the same analogy; _grandson_ being
+_petit fils_ (little son.)]
+
+
+
+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
+_capital_? 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 _murder_?
+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 _the
+intent_, 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 _motive_ and find out whether the master _designed_ to
+kill. (1.) "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument
+used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num. xxxv. 16, 18. A _rod_, not
+an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other death-weapon--hence,
+from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_ would be inferred;
+for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_ for its weapon. But
+if the servant die _under his hand_, then the unfitness of the
+instrument, is point blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_
+until he _dies_, argues a great many blows and great violence, and this
+kept up to the death-gasp, showed an _intent to kill_. Hence "He shall
+_surely_ be punished." But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length
+of time that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, and
+the master's pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he is his _money_,")
+all made a strong case of circumstantial evidence, showing that the
+master did not design to kill. Further, the word _nakam_, here rendered
+_punished_, is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet it occurs
+thirty-five times in the Old Testament, and in almost every place is
+translated "_avenge_," in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_to
+revenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in our
+translation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the _master_, whereas
+it should refer to the _crime_, and the word rendered _punished_, should
+have been rendered _avenged_. 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, _by avenging it shall be
+avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be _avenged_ by the
+_death_ of the master. So in the next verse, "If he continue a day or
+two," his death is not to be avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as
+in that case the crime was to be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not
+_murder_. In the following verse, another case of personal injury is
+stated, for which the injurer is to pay a _sum of money_; 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 _avenged_," 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 _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury,
+in the following verse, God says, "He shall surely be _fined_,"
+(_Aunash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges determine." The simple meaning
+of the word _anash_, 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 (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of gold."
+That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor
+stripes, nor a fine, but that it was _taking the master's life_ we
+infer, (1.) From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. 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 _uttermost_." 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 _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an _article
+of property_. 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) _is_ my blood;"
+"all they (the Israelites) _are_ brass and tin;" "this (water) _is_ the
+blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord God
+_is_ a sun and a shield;" "God _is_ love;" "the seven good ears _are_
+seven years, and the seven good kine _are_ seven years;" "the tree of
+the field _is_ man's life;" "God _is_ a consuming fire;" "he _is_ his
+money," &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_ of the Bible is so
+amiable, it were hard not to gratify it in this case. The words in the
+original are (_Kaspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ 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 _solid
+silver!_ Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble with
+all--reasoning against "_forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and,
+Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase,
+"_He is his money_," is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since,
+if the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his
+pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the
+fact of his living some time after the injury_, (if the master _meant_
+to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) all together
+make a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master of
+_intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One
+is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_ 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 _equally_ his
+property, and the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is
+to be "surely punished" for destroying _his own property!_ The other
+inference is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the
+master of _intent to kill_, 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 _pecuniary
+loss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ 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 _adequate_ to the desert of the master,
+admits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ 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 _new_
+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 _pecuniary loss_ 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,--_the pecuniary loss of both cases is the same_. If the loss of
+the slave's services is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing
+him, would _God_ command the _same_ punishment for the _accidental_
+knocking out of a _tooth?_ Indeed, unless the injury was done
+_inadvertantly_, the loss of the servant's services was only a _part_ of
+the punishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the
+_main_ punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the
+_community_. To set the servant free, 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. 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
+_his_ tooth--thus redressing the _public_ 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.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+The _points_ 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."
+
+The _buying_ 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."
+
+1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called
+"_bondmen_," while others are called "_servants_," 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 "_ebedh_," the plural of which is here translated "bondmen,"
+is in Isa. xlii. 1, applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_ (bondman,
+slave?) whom I have chosen." So Isa. lii. 13. "Behold my _servant_
+(Christ) shall deal prudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, to _King
+Rehoboam_. "And they spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_
+unto this people, then they will be thy _servants_ forever." In 2 Chron.
+xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation. In fine, the word is
+applied to _all_ 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 _Lord_ and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah,
+and in respectful addresses not less than _fifty_ times in the Old
+Testament.
+
+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 _meant slave_? 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 "_ebedh_," yet he "_owned_" (!) twenty _ebedhs_!
+In our language, we have both _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we
+have both the _things_ and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a
+sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but
+our dictionaries give us none. Why? Because there is no such _thing_.
+But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _ebedh_
+if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. Their _national_
+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
+_heathen laws and usages_ proclaimed their _liabilities_, their
+_locality_ made a _specific_ term unnecessary. But if the Israelites had
+not only _servants_, but a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning
+slave_, 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.
+
+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 _individual_ service, proclaims the permanence of
+the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their
+_permanent domestics_ 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 _always_ get your _permanent_ 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.
+
+That "_forever_" refers to the permanent relations of a _community_,
+rather than to the services of _individuals_, is a fair inference from
+the form of the expression, "Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the
+_heathen_. Of THEM shall ye buy," &c. "THEY shall be your possession."
+To say nothing of the uncertainty of _those individuals_ surviving those
+_after_ whom they are to live, the language used, applies more naturally
+to a _body_ of people, than to _individual_ servants. Besides
+_perpetual_ service cannot be argued from the term _forever_. 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 _Israelitish_ inhabitants alone. The command
+is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL _the inhabitants
+thereof_." 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 _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_. 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 _forever_ did refer to _individual_
+service, we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee.
+The same word defines the length of time which _Jewish_ servants served
+who did not go out in the _seventh_ 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 "_forever_" 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 _forever_, in the 46th verse, respects the
+_general arrangement_, and not _individual service_ the objection does
+not touch the argument. Besides in the 46th verse, the word used, is
+_Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that may be. Whereas
+in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning, a _cutting off_.
+
+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 _nations_, and not to the _individual_ servants, procured
+from these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not be
+held as a _property_-possession, and inheritance; that they became
+servants of their _own accord_, and were paid wages; that they were
+released by law from their regular labor nearly _half the days in each
+year_, and thoroughly _instructed_; that the servants were _protected_
+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 _just such a condition_ 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 _nahal_ and _nahala_,
+inherit and inheritance by no means necessarily signify _articles of
+property_. "The people answered the king and said, we have none
+_inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they moan
+gravely to disclaim the holding of their kin; as an article of
+_property_? "Children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps.
+cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine _inheritance_."
+Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children,
+does he make them _articles of property_? Are forgiveness, and
+chattel-making, synonymes? "Thy testimonies have I taken as a
+_heritage_" (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. "_I_ am their _inheritance_."
+Ezek. xliv. 28. "I will give thee the heathen for thine _inheritance_."
+Ps. ii. 8. "For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he
+forsake his _inheritance_." 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-"_possession_," has been already
+discussed--pp. 37-46--we need add in this place but a word, _ahuzza_
+rendered "_possession_." "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren,
+and gave them a _possession_ in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlii. 11. In
+what sense was Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites? Answer, in the
+sense of _having it to live in_. In what sense were the Israelites to
+_possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an _inheritance for their
+children_? 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 _them_
+shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of
+the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_ shall ye get, and of
+their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and
+_they_ shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a
+_perpetual_ provision for your children after you, to hold as a
+_constant source of supply_. Always _of them_ shall ye serve
+yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest from its structure.
+It was to point out the _class_ of persons from which they were to get
+their supply of servants, and the _way_ in which they were to get them.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+As only _one_ class is called "_hired_," it is inferred that servants of
+the _other_ class were _not paid_ 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 "_hired_" is synonymous with _paid_, and that those
+servants not _called_ "hired" were not _paid_ for their labor, is a mere
+assumption. The meaning of the English verb _to hire_, is to procure for
+a _temporary_ use at a certain price--to engage a person to temporary
+service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew word
+"_saukar_." It is not used when the procurement of _permanent_ service
+is spoken of. Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who
+constituted a stationary part of the family, have been designated by the
+same term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinction on
+this subject, are familiar as table-talk. In many families the domestics
+perform only the _regular_ 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 _paid_ help.) _Both classes are paid_. One is
+permanent, the other occasional and temporary, and therefore in this
+case called "_hired_[A]."
+
+[Footnote A: To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings because he is
+not called a _hired_ servant is profound induction! If I employ a man at
+twelve dollars a month to work my farm, he is my "_hired_" man, but if
+_I give him such a portion of the crop_, or in other words, if he works
+my farm "_on shares_," every farmer knows that he is no longer called my
+"_hired_" 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 "_hired_," and as he still works
+my farm, suppose my neighbours sagely infer, that since he is not my
+"_hired_" laborer, I _rob_ 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.]
+
+A variety of particulars are recorded distinguishing _hired_ from
+_bought_ 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.
+"_Bought_" servants were paid in advance, (a reason for their being
+called _bought_,) and those that went out at the seventh year received a
+_gratuity_. Deut. xv. 12, 13. (2.) The "hired" were paid _in money_, the
+"bought" received their _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and the
+product of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The "hired" _lived_ 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 _besides_ their wages.
+The "bought" servants were, _as a class, superior to the hired_--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 _heir_, come let us
+kill him, _that the inheritance may be ours._" Luke xx. 14. In no
+instance does a _hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. (3.)
+Marriages took place between servants and their master's daughters.
+Sheshan had a _servant_, 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 _hired_ 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]. 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 _hired_ servants and their masters. Their untrustworthiness was
+proverbial. John ix. 12, 13. None but the _lowest class_ 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 _hired_ servant thus distinguished. The
+_bought_ 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, _for all the goods of his master
+were under his hand_." 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
+_disposal of property_. 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 _discretionary_ power, was
+"accused of wasting his master's goods," and manifestly regulated with
+his debtors, the _terms_ of settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8. Such trusts were
+never reposed in _hired_ servants.
+
+[Footnote A: "For the _purchased servant_ 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 _purchased_ 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.]
+
+The inferior condition of _hired_ 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 _hired_ servants." If _hired_ servants were the _superior_ 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 _climbs_; 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, _the lowest place_, 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 _hired_
+servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of
+winning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student of
+the Bible, that _one_ 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 _hired_ 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 _humility_, put it on stilts,
+and set it a strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in
+apeing it.
+
+Israelites and Strangers, belonged indiscriminately to _each_ class of
+the servants, the _bought_ and the _hired_. That those in the former
+class, whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the
+family circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been
+shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,
+merely _political_, the hired servants from the _Israelites_, were more
+favored than even the bought servants from the _Strangers_. 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.
+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.
+To mitigate as much as possible such a calamity, the law released the
+Israelitish servant at the end of six years[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. 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 _Stranger_ to _prolong_ 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
+_permanent employment_, pursued both as a _means_ of bettering their own
+condition, and that of their posterity, and as an _end_ for its own
+sake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not
+otherwise attainable.
+
+[Footnote 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
+_graduated_ 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
+_becoming servants_ proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as
+demanded the labor of a _course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]
+
+We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are
+called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_,) (1.) They
+followed it as a _permanent business_. (2.) Their term of service was
+_much longer_ 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 _tributaries_, required to pay an
+annual tax to the government, either in money, or in public service,
+(called a "_tribute of land-service_;") in other words, all the
+Strangers were _national servants_ to the Israelites, and the same
+Hebrew word used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates
+_national_ 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. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought
+servants, was in their _kinds_ of service. The servants from the
+Strangers were properly the _domestics_, 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
+_agricultural_. 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, "_And
+behold Saul came after the herd out of the field_." 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 _was "threshing wheat_"
+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
+_Jewish_ 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 _unjew_ him, a hardship and rigor
+grievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between
+the descendants of Abraham and the Strangers.--_To guard this and
+another fundamental distinction_, 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 _servitude_." In the Septuagint, "He shall not
+serve thee with the service of a _domestic_." 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] The
+meaning of the passage is, _thou shalt not assign him to the same grade,
+nor put him to the same service, with permanent domestics._ The
+remainder of the regulation is,--"_But as an hired servant and as a
+sojourner shall he be with thee._" 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 _of keeping back their wages_. To
+have taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, would
+have been pre-eminent "_rigor_," 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 _assignment_ of his inheritance,
+but was working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its
+possession and control. But it was that of _the head of a family_, 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 _Israelite--Abraham is his father_, 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, _thou shalt not serve thyself with him,
+with the service of a servant_, guaranties his political privileges, and
+a kind and grade of service, comporting with his character and relations
+as an Israelite. And "as a _hired_ 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 _alleviate_ 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 _irrespective_ 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 _rigorous_ in the extreme[B]. 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 _serve_ with rigor." This
+rigor is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted and the _mode_ 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.
+
+[Footnote 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."]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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 _social_ estimation. They were regarded according to their
+character, and worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin,
+employments, and political condition.]
+
+
+
+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 _men_, with the rights, interests, hopes
+and destinies of _men_. In all these respects, _all_ classes of servants
+among the Israelites, formed but ONE CLASS. The _different_ classes and
+the differences in _each_ class, were, (1.) _Hired Servants._ This class
+consisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were
+different. The _Israelite_ was an agricultural servant. The Stranger was
+a _domestic_ and _personal_ servant, and in some instances _mechanical_;
+both were occasional and temporary. Both lived in their own families,
+their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work was done.
+(2.) _Bought Servants_, (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], and neither was temporary. The Israelitish servant, with the
+exception of the _freeholders_ was released after six years. The
+stranger was a permanent servant, continuing until the jubilee. A marked
+distinction obtained also between different classes of _Jewish_ 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 _freeholder_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, 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.]
+
+It should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the
+Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal natural and
+religious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed
+by those of their own people who were _not_ 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 _political_ and _national._ (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 _unjewish._
+
+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 _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_. 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.
+
+
+
+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 _descendant of Abraham_ and a
+_Stranger_, 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 _permanent
+female domestics_; but her marriage, did not release her master from
+_his_ 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
+_grade_ and _term_ of service, nor impair her obligation to fulfill
+_her_ 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 _their_ 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.
+
+
+
+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 _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. For, _be it remembered_, only
+_one_ 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 _commuted_, 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 _enslave_ 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 _man_--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 _slave_,
+cheapens to nothing _universal human nature_, 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, by robbing it of _all_, and
+annihilating their _foundation_--the everlasting distinction between
+persons and things? To make a man a chattel, is not the _punishment_,
+but the _annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and, so far as it goes, of
+_all_ 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 _doctrines_. 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
+_inhabitants_ or merely of the _body politic?_ The word _haram_, to
+destroy, signifies _national_, as well as individual destruction, the
+destruction of _political_ existence, equally with _personal_; of
+governmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects.
+Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to
+mean _personal_ 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 _turn their backs unto thee_" Ex. xxiii. 27. Here "_all
+thine enemies_" were to _turn their backs_ and "_all the people_" to be
+"_destroyed_." Does this mean that God would let all their _enemies_
+escape, but kill all their _friends_, or that he would _first_ 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 _individual
+extermination_ of those whose lives and interests it thus protects?
+These laws were given to the Israelites, long _before_ they entered
+Canaan; and they must have inferred from them that a multitude of the
+inhabitants of the land were to _continue_ in it, 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 "_dwelt among them_," 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 _stood not a man_ of _all_
+their enemies before them." How can this be, if the command to _destroy_
+enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the command to _drive out_,
+unconditional expulsion from the country, rather than their expulsion
+from the _possession_ or _ownership_ 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 _acquiesced_ 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]. 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 _tributaries_ 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[B]. 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 _utterly destroy_ 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
+_utterly destroyed_ 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 _all been_
+"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 _cities_, (and even those conditionally,) because,
+only the inhabitants of the _cities_ are specified,--"of the _cities_ 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 _all_ the
+nations and individuals _around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God
+commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with
+_any_ of them would be perilous--with the inhabitants of the _cities_
+peculiarly, and of the _Canaanitish_ 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
+_tributaries_--but if they came out against Israel in battle, the _men_
+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
+_afar off_. 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 _whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with
+the 10th, whereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_
+specified in the 12th, 13th, and 14th, making a distinction between
+those _Canaanitish_ cities that _fought_, and the cities _afar off_ that
+fought--in one case destroying the males and females, and in the other,
+the _males_ only. The offer of peace, and the _conditional
+preservation_, were as really guarantied to _Canaanitish_ 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 _not_ come out against Israel in battle, they would
+have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been "_destroyed
+utterly._" The great design was to _transfer the territory_ of the
+Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute sovereignty
+in every respect_; 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 _denationalized_, 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[C]; 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. "_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_; THEN SHALL THEY BE
+BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE."
+
+[Footnote 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 _exterminate all the Canaanites_,
+their pledge to save themselves was neither a repeal of the statute, nor
+absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ 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 _had_ passed their word
+to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than God's command?
+So Saul seems to have passed _his_ 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 _remaining in
+any of the coasts of Israel_, let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. 2
+Sam. xxii. 1-6.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote C: 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.]
+
+[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 _indices_, 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.]
+
+
+
+
+
+THE
+
+
+ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER  NO 4.
+
+
+THE
+
+
+BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+
+AN INQUIRY INTO THE
+
+
+PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS
+
+
+ON THE SUBJECT OF
+
+
+HUMAN RIGHTS.
+
+
+Fourth Edition--Enlarged.
+
+
+
+NEW YORK:
+
+PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
+
+NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.
+
+1838.
+
+This No. contains 7 sheets:--Postage, under 100 miles, 10 1/2 cents;
+over 100 miles, 14 cents.
+
+Please read and Circulate.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+    DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,
+
+
+        NEGATIVE,
+
+        AFFIRMATIVE,
+
+        LEGAL,
+
+
+    THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY
+
+
+        "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL,"
+
+        "THOU SHALT NOT COVET,"
+
+
+    MAN-STEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,
+
+
+        SEPARATION OF MAN FROM BRUTES AND THINGS,
+
+
+    IMPORT OF "BUY" AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY,"
+
+
+        SERVANTS SOLD THEMSELVES,
+
+
+    RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SERVANTS,
+
+    SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY,
+
+
+        RUNAWAY SERVANTS NOT TO BE DELIVERED TO THEIR MASTERS,
+
+
+    SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES,
+
+    MASTERS NOT "OWNERS,"
+
+
+        SERVANTS NOT SUBJECTED TO THE USES OF PROPERTY,
+
+        SERVANTS EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED FROM PROPERTY,
+
+        EXAMINATION OF GEN. xii. 5.--"THE SOULS THAT THEY HAD
+        GOTTEN," &c.
+
+        SOCIAL EQUALITY OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS,
+
+        CONDITION OF THE GIBEONITES AS SUBJECTS OF THE HEBREW
+        COMMONWEALTH,
+
+        EGYPTIAN BONDAGE CONTRASTED WITH AMERICAN SLAVERY,
+
+        CONDITION OF AMERICAN SLAVES,
+
+        ILL FED,
+
+        ILL CLOTHED,
+
+        OVER-WORKED,
+
+        THEIR DWELLING UNFIT FOR HUMAN BEINGS,
+
+        MORAL CONDITION--"HEATHENS,"
+
+
+    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+    "CURSED BE CANAAN," &c.--EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,
+
+    "FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &c.--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 20, 21,
+
+    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44-46,
+
+
+        "BOTH THY BONDMEN, &c., SHALL BE OF THE HEATHEN,"
+
+        "OF THEM SHALL YE BUY,"
+
+        "THEY SHALL BE YOUR BONDMEN FOREVER,"
+
+        "YE SHALL TAKE THEM AS AN INHERITANCE," &c.
+
+
+    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 39, 40.--THE FREEHOLDER NOT TO "SERVE
+    AS A BOND SERVANT,"
+
+
+        DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIRED AND BOUGHT SERVANTS,
+
+        BOUGHT SERVANTS THE MOST FAVORED AND HONORED CLASS,
+
+        ISRAELITES AND STRANGERS BELONGED TO BOTH CLASSES,
+
+        ISRAELITES SERVANTS TO THE STRANGERS,
+
+        REASONS FOR THE RELEASE OF THE ISRAELITISH SERVANTS IN
+        THE SEVENTH YEAR,
+
+        REASONS FOR ASSIGNING THE STRANGERS TO A LONGER SERVICE,
+
+        REASONS FOR CALLING THEM THE SERVANTS,
+
+        DIFFERENT KINDS OF SERVICE ASSIGNED TO THE ISRAELITES
+        AND STRANGERS,
+
+
+    REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF
+    EACH,
+
+
+        POLITICAL DISABILITIES OF THE STRANGERS,
+
+
+    EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2-6.--"IF THOU BUY AN HEBREW SERVANT,"
+
+    THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION,
+
+
+
+
+
+THE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+
+
+DEFINITION OF SLAVERY.
+
+If we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must determine
+_what slavery is_. 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.
+
+1. PRIVATION OF SUFFRAGE. Then minors are slaves.
+
+2. INELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE. Then females are slaves.
+
+3. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Then slaveholders in the District of
+Columbia are slaves.
+
+4. PRIVATION OF ONE'S OATH IN LAW. Then atheists are slaves.
+
+5. PRIVATION OF TRIAL BY JURY. Then all in France are slaves.
+
+6. BEING REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A PARTICULAR RELIGION. Then the people of
+England are slaves.
+
+7. APPRENTICESHIP. The rights and duties of master and apprentice are
+correlative. The _claim_ of each upon the other results from his
+_obligation_ 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 _just_ to the
+former it is _benevolent_ 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 _right_ 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 _equally_ 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?
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _property_ be guilty? Can _chattels_ deserve punishment?
+
+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!
+
+12. INVOLUNTARY OR COMPULSORY SERVICE. A juryman is empannelled against
+his will, and sit he _must_. A sheriff orders his posse; bystanders
+_must_ turn in. Men are _compelled_ 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
+_condition_. The slave's _feelings_ 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 _make_ him a chattel, or make
+those guiltless who _hold_ 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 _consent_ 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.
+
+Many of the foregoing conditions are _appendages_ of slavery, but no
+one, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging
+element.
+
+ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY--making free
+agents, chattels--converting _persons_ into _things_--sinking
+immortality into _merchandize_. A _slave_ is one held in this condition.
+In law, "he owns nothing, and can acquire nothing." His right to himself
+is abrogated. If he say _my_ hands, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY_self_, they
+are figures of speech. To _use himself_ for his own good, is a _crime_.
+To keep what he earns, is _stealing_. To take his body into his own
+keeping, is _insurrection_. In a word, the profit of his master is made
+the END of his being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end--a mere means
+to an end into which his interests do not enter, of which they
+constitute no portion[A]. MAN, sunk to a _thing!_ the intrinsic element,
+the _principle_ 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 _rights_,
+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 _himself_; not loading
+him with burdens, but making him a _beast of burden_; not restraining
+liberty, but subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them;
+not inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not
+exacting involuntary labor, but sinking man into an _implement_ 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 _thing_!
+
+[Footnote A: To deprive human nature of _any_ of its rights is
+_oppression_; to take away the _foundation_ of its rights is slavery. In
+other words, whatever sinks man from an END to a mere _means_, 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 _mere means_, a slave. True in other respects slavery was
+abolished in the British West Indies August, 1834. Its bloodiest
+features were 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 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. [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.] ]
+
+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 _things_--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." _Brev. Dig._, 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_, Art. 35.
+
+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.
+
+Having stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE
+BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A] "To the _law_ and the testimony?"
+
+[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral
+character. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records
+without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob
+and his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and
+concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent
+entry_ God's _endorsement?_ Because the Bible in its catalogue of human
+actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write
+against it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach
+it into a virtue?]
+
+
+
+THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+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 _belongs_ 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 _use_ 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 _use_. The right to use according to will, is _itself_
+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 _relative_ to this, is
+derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the
+_foundation right_--the _post in the middle_, 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 _a man belongs to himself_--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 man_ 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 _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of
+_his own_; and yet in the act of making a man a slave, the slaveholder
+_asserts_ the validity of his own title, while he seizes him as his
+property who has the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he
+does not merely disfranchise of humanity _one_ individual, but UNIVERSAL
+MAN. He destroys the foundations. He annihilates _all rights_. He
+attacks not only the human race, but _universal being_, and rushes upon
+JEHOVAH. For rights are _rights_; God's are no more--man's are no less.
+
+The eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any part_ of that which
+belongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which
+prohibits the taking of _any_ thing from him, sanction the taking of
+_every_ thing! Does it thunder wrath against the man who robs his
+neighbor of a _cent_, yet commission him to rob his neighbour of
+_himself?_ Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the eight
+commandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to take the
+_earner_, 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  tenth adds, "Thou shalt not _covet_ 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 _tempt_ to it. Who ever made human beings
+slaves, without _coveting_ 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 _desire_ 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. _Ten_ commandments
+constitute the brief compend of human duty. _Two_ of these brand slavery
+as sin.
+
+
+
+MANSTEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. XXI. 16.
+
+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]." Ex. xxi. 16.
+
+[Footnote 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 _its full protection from the
+danger of being enticed away from its rightful owner."_--Am. Quart.
+Review for June, 1833. Article "Negro slavery."]
+
+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. "_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. Deut.
+xxiv, 7[A]. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance to
+the Mosaic system!
+
+[Footnote 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, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_,
+the person compelling him but once to do so, shall die as a thief,
+whether he has sold him or not."]
+
+The word _Ganabh_ here rendered _stealeth,_ 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.
+
+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
+_servant_, not "he that stealeth a _man_." If the crime had been the
+taking of an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have
+been expressive of that relation, and most especially if it was the
+relation of property and _proprietor!_
+
+The crime is stated in a three-fold form--man _stealing_, _selling_, and
+_holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one
+penalty--DEATH[A]. This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of a man,
+is the _man himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said, "Indeed
+I was _stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. How
+_stolen?_ His brethren sold him as an article of merchandize. Contrast
+this penalty for _man_-stealing with that for _property_-stealing, Ex.
+xxii. 14. If a man had stolen an _ox_ 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 _man_, the _first_ 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
+_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-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 _property-value_ 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 _of the same kind_. Why was
+not the rule uniform? When a _man_ 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 _have_ them? So
+the ox-thief might not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, five. But
+if God permitted men to hold _men_ 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 _man_ 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 _money!_ 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."
+
+[Footnote A: "Those are _men-stealers_ who abduct, _keep_, sell, or buy
+slaves or freemen." GROTIUS.]
+
+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 _that_ 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 _property_, by putting him on a level with
+it?
+
+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 _nature_ of
+the article, but in taking as _mine_ what is _his_. But when I take my
+neighbor himself, and first make him _property_, and then _my_ 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
+_personality_ into _property_. 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 _nature_ of a _man_--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 _parent_, it struck the smiter
+dead. The parental relation is the _centre_ of human society. God guards
+it with peculiar care. To violate that, is to violate all. Whoever
+tramples on that, shows that _no_ 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.
+
+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. "_Honor thy father and thy
+mother_," 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 _man,_ but a
+_parent_--_a distinction_ 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 _immortal nature_, the blotting out of a sacred
+_distinction_--making MEN "chattels."
+
+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, "_Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man
+shall his blood be shed, for_ 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. "_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels."_
+Slavery drags him down among _brutes._ 2. _"And hast crowned him with
+glory and honor."_ Slavery tears off his crown, and puts on a _yoke_. 3.
+_"Thou madest him to have dominion_[A] OVER _the works of thy hands."_
+Slavery breaks his sceptre, and cast him down _among_ those works--yea,
+_beneath them_. 4. _"Thou hast put all things under his feet_." 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, _"Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of
+these, ye did it unto ME._"
+
+[Footnote A: "Thou madest him to have dominion." In Gen. i. 28, God says
+to man, _"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," thus
+vesting in _every_ human being the right of ownership over the earth,
+its products and animal life, and in _each_ human being the _same_
+right. By so doing God prohibited the exercise of ownership by man over
+_man_; for the grant to _all_ men of _equal_ ownership, for ever _shut_
+out the possibility of their exercising ownership over _each other_, as
+whoever is the owner of a _man_, is the owner of his _right of
+property_--in other words, when one man becomes the property of another
+his rights become such too, his _right of property_ is transferred to
+his "owner," and thus as far as _himself_ is concerned, is annihilated.
+Finally, by originally vesting _all_ men with dominion or ownership over
+property, God proclaimed the _right of all_ to exercise it, and
+pronounced every man who takes it away a robber of the highest grade.
+Such is every slaveholder.]
+
+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 _legal_ forms of Divine
+institutions previously existing. As a _system_, the latter alone is of
+Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs God has not
+made them our exemplars.[B] The question to be settled by us, is not
+what were Jewish _customs_, but what were the rules that God gave for
+the regulation of those customs.
+
+[Footnote B: 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 _concubinage_,
+winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, 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!]
+
+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.
+
+
+
+IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY."
+
+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 _the terms
+themselves!_ How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be
+proved were always _assumed_! 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 _now_ used, is the _inspired_ sense. David says, "I
+prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried." What, stop the earth
+in its revolution! Two hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in its
+strict Latin sense, to _come before_, or _anticipate_. 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 _opposite_ to their present meaning. A few examples follow: "I
+purposed to come to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the
+four _beasts_ (living ones) fell down and worshiped God,"--"Whosoever
+shall _offend_ (cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--Go out into
+the highways and _compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--Only let your
+_conversation_ (habitual conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,"--"The Lord
+Jesus Christ who shall judge the _quick_ (living) and the dead,"--They
+that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me," So when tribulation or
+persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (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 _now_. 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 _now_,
+it _must_ have trailed over Canaan four thousand years ago!
+
+The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of
+servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the
+fallacy, that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or
+whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of
+your paying for it, _proves_ 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 _buy_ is still
+used to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their firstborn
+were or are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really as were
+_servants_. 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 _price_
+should be set upon the "_persons_," and it prescribed the manner and
+_terms_ of the "estimation" or valuation, by the payment of which, the
+persons might be _bought off_ from the service vowed. The _price_ 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 _bought_ and their _prices_ regulated by law! 4. Bible saints
+_bought_ their wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "Moreover Ruth the Moabitess,
+the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ (bought) to be my wife." Ruth iv.
+10.[A] Hosea bought his wife. "So I _bought_ 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.[B] 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 _real_
+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 _medium_ 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 _wives_, their husbands and
+masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3, 27. If
+_buying_ servants proves them property, buying wives proves _them_
+property. 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? 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."
+
+[Footnote A: In the verse preceding, Boaz says, "I have _bought_ all
+that was Elimelech's * * * of the hand of Naomi." In the original, the
+same word (_kana_) 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+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 _marriages_ in the old German
+Chronicles was, "A BOUGHT B."
+
+The word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the nature
+of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, "I have _gotten_
+(bought) a man from the Lord." She named him Cain, that is _bought_. "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 _buy_)
+the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. "He brought them to his
+mountain which his right hand had _purchased_," (gotten.) Neh. v. 8. "We
+of our ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren the Jews, that were
+sold unto the heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons
+reduced to servitude, but to those taken _out_ of it. Prov. viii. 22.
+"The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way." Prov. xix.
+8. "He that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Finally, to
+_buy_ is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word _kana_.
+
+Even at this day the word _buy_ 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 "_bought_" 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 _indenture_ in Illinois, servants now are "_bought_."[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" _out_ 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 _bought_ him." Sir Robert
+Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it, can
+_buy_ him," and John Randolph said, "The northern delegation is in the
+market; give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them." The temperance
+publications tell us that candidates for office _buy_ men with whiskey;
+and the oracles of street tattle, that the court, district attorney, and
+jury, in the late trial of Robinson were _bought_, yet we have no
+floating visions of "chattels personal," man-auctions, or coffles.
+
+[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the free state of
+Illinois--"No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time _purchase_
+any servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the
+persons aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such
+servant shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and
+taken."]
+
+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 _voluntary_. It is hardly necessary
+to add that they are in no sense the "property" of their purchasers.[A]
+
+[Footnote A: "The select-men" of each town annually give notice, that at
+such a time and place, they will proceed to _sell_ 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: "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.] ]
+
+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 _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain
+that neither party regarded the persons _bought_ 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 _value
+received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft of their
+personal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of
+_services_ (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in
+Scripture usage, _buying the persons_. 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," _sold themselves_, and of their
+own accord. 2. Paying for the permanent _service_ of persons, or even a
+portion of it, is called "buying" those persons; just as paying for the
+_use_ of land or houses for a number of years in succession is called in
+Scripture usage _buying_ them. See Lev. xxv. 28, 33, and xxvii. 24. The
+objector, at the outset, takes it for granted, that servants were bought
+of _third_ persons; and thence infers that they were articles of
+property. Both the alleged fact and the inference are _sheer
+assumptions_. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in which
+a _master sold his servant_.
+
+That servants who were "bought," _sold themselves_, is a fair inference
+from various passages of Scripture.[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." Yet the 51st verse informs us
+that this servant was "BOUGHT" and that the price of his purchase was
+paid to _himself_. The _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word,
+which, in verse 47, is rendered _sell himself_, is in verse 39 of the
+same chapter, rendered _be sold_; 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 "_be
+sold_" without _being bought_? Our translation makes it nonsense. The
+word _Makar_ rendered "_be sold_" 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 _offer yourselves_ 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 _sold thyself_ to work
+evil." "There was none like unto Ahab which did sell _himself_ to work
+wickedness."--2 Kings xvii. 17. "They used divination and enchantments,
+and _sold themselves_ to do evil."--Isa. l. 1. "For your iniquities have
+ye _sold yourselves."_ Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have _sold yourselves_ 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 _third_ persons.
+If _servants_ were bought of third persons, it is strange that no
+_instance_ of it is on record.
+
+[Footnote 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 _third persons_, 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 _sellers_ were doomed as well as the _sold_. Where, we ask, did the
+sellers get their right to sell? God by commanding the Israelites to
+BUY, affirmed the right of _somebody_ to _sell_, and that the
+_ownership_ of what was sold existed _somewhere_; which _right_ and
+ownership he commanded them to _recognize_ and _respect_. We repeat the
+question, where did the heathen _sellers_ get their right to sell, since
+_they_ were dispossessed of their right to _themselves_ and doomed to
+slavery equally with those whom they sold. Did God's decree vest in them
+a right to _others_ while it annulled their right to _themselves_? If,
+as the objector's argument assumes, one part of "the heathen round
+about" were _already_ held as slaves by the other part, _such_ of course
+were not _doomed_ to slavery, for they were already slaves. So also, if
+those heathen who held them as slaves had a _right_ to hold them, which
+right God commanded the Israelites to _buy out_, thus requiring them to
+recognize _it_ as a _right_, and on no account to procure its transfer
+to themselves without paying to the holders an equivalent, surely, these
+_slaveholders_ were not doomed by God to be slaves, for according to the
+objector, God had himself affirmed their right _to hold others as
+slaves_, and commanded his people to respect it.]
+
+We now proceed to inquire into the _condition_ of servants under the
+patriarchal and Mosaic systems.
+
+
+
+I. THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF SERVANTS.
+
+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
+_servants_. While the master's interests were guarded from injury, those
+of the servants were _promoted_. 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 _privileges_ and
+_favors_.
+
+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.
+
+II. NO STRANGER COULD JOIN THE FAMILY OF AN ISRAELITE WITHOUT BECOMING A
+PROSELYTE. Compliance with this condition was the _price of the
+privilege_. Gen. xvii. 9-14, 23, 27. In other words, to become a servant
+was virtually to become an Israelite.[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 _punishment_, or a ticket of admission to
+_privileges_?
+
+[Footnote 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
+_became Jews_." 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.]
+
+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 _cast out_ 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
+_sent her away_. 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 _put out_ 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 _family_ of an
+Israelite. In other words he could be a _servant_ no longer than he was
+an _Israelite_. To forfeit the latter _distinction_ involved the
+forfeiture of the former _privilege_--which proves that it _was_ a
+privilege.
+
+IV. THE HEBREW SERVANT COULD COMPEL HIS MASTER TO KEEP HIM.
+
+When the six years' contract had expired, if the servant _demanded_ it,
+the law _obliged_ 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.
+
+V. SERVANTS WERE ADMITTED INTO COVENANT WITH GOD. Deut. xxix. 10-13.
+
+VI. THEY WERE GUESTS AT ALL NATIONAL AND FAMILY FESTIVALS Ex. xii.
+43-44; Deut xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16.
+
+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.
+
+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,
+
+1. _Every seventh year;_ Lev. xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who were
+servants during the entire period between the jubilees, _eight whole
+years_, (including the jubilee year,) of unbroken rest.
+
+2. _Every seventh day._ This in forty-two years, the eight being
+subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just _six years_.
+
+3. _The three annual festivals._ Ex. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23. The
+_Passover_, 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 _festival
+week_, 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 _nine
+weeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the
+sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.
+
+4. _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says that the
+Jews always kept _two_ 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.
+
+5. _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and
+of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.
+
+6. _The atonement day_. On the tenth of the seventh month Lev. xxiii.
+27.
+
+These two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not
+reckoned above.
+
+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 _fractions_ to the
+objector, we have left out those numerous _local_ festivals to which
+frequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; 1 Sam. ix. 12. 22. etc., and
+the various _family_ 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.
+
+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 _every day_, the
+servants would have to themselves nearly _one half of each day_.
+
+The service of those Strangers who were _national_ 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 _Nethinims_) 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.
+
+IX. THE SERVANT WAS PROTECTED BY LAW EQUALLY WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF
+THE COMMUNITY
+
+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] Deut. xxvii. 19.
+
+[Footnote 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. "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 _committal of any thing against our
+fellow men?_"
+
+"Answer. No where we do find a trace of such a difference. See Lev. xix.
+33-36."
+
+"God says thou shalt not murder, _steal_, cheat, &c. In every place the
+action _itself_ is prohibited as being an abomination to God _without
+respect to the PERSONS against whom it is committed_." ]
+
+X. THE MOSAIC SYSTEM ENJOINED THE GREATEST AFFECTION AND KINDNESS
+TOWARDS SERVANTS, FOREIGN AS WELL AS JEWISH.
+
+"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?
+
+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 _alike_ the natural rights of _all_ men, and
+making for all an _equal_ 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.
+
+Finally--With such watchful jealousy did the Mosaic Institutes guard the
+_rights_ of servants, as to make the mere fact of a servant's escape
+from his master presumptive evidence that his master had _oppressed_
+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.
+
+THESE ARE REGULATIONS OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY
+SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.
+
+
+
+II. WERE PERSONS MADE SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?
+
+We argue that they became servants of _their own accord,_ because,
+
+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], 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 _forced_ through all these processes? Was the
+renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant
+with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they
+_compelled_ 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 _driven_
+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 _servant_, was to become
+a _proselyte_. 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 _merchandise?_ Were _proselyte and chattel_
+synonymes in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_
+before taken into covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition
+of adoption? the sure and sacred passport to the communion of the
+saints?
+
+[Footnote A: Maimonides, 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.
+
+"But he that is in the _house_ 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 _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown
+slave, and he be _unwilling_, 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 _refuse_ 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."--Maimon, Hilcoth Miloth, Chap. 1,
+Sec. 8.
+
+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
+_full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his
+expenses. But that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign
+servant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of
+an Israelite) of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a
+mere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic
+system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_.
+Whether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes
+not within the scope of this inquiry. ]
+
+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.
+
+As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the
+_right_ of the master to hold him; his _fleeing_ shows his _choice_,
+proclaims his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall not force
+him back and thus recognize the _right_ 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 _heathen_
+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 _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and
+yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of
+_thousands_ of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A _foreign_
+servant escapes to the Israelites; God says, "He shall dwell with thee,
+in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it
+_liketh him_ best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming
+into Israel of his own accord, had been _dragged_ 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
+_voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the same treatment of the
+_same person_, 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 _begin_ the violence _after_ he has come
+among you. But if you commit the first act on the _other side of the
+line_; 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
+_greater_ 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 _him_,
+uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and kindness denied to
+the multitudes who _were_ circumcised, and _within_ 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
+_master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was
+not, merely "Thou shalt not deliver him unto his _master_," but "he
+shall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_ in one of
+thy gates where it liketh _him_ best." Every Israelite was forbidden to
+put him in any condition _against his will_. What was this but a
+proclamation, that all who _chose_ 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
+_foreign_ servants only, there was no law requiring the return of
+servants who had escaped from the _Israelites_. _Property_ lost, and
+_cattle_ escaped, they were required to return, but not escaped
+_servants_. These verses contain, 1st, a command, "Thou shalt not
+deliver," &c., 2d. a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free
+choice_, 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 _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his
+residence, it is _oppression_, and shall not be tolerated."[A]
+
+[Footnote 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
+_authority_, 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 _for his tooth's
+sake,"_ 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 _as a compensation_, for the
+loss of a tooth.]
+
+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 "_slaves_" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a
+body of slaves is moved any distance in our _republic_, they are
+handcuffed and chained together, to keep them from running away, or
+beating their drivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ 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
+_handmaids_ 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!
+
+IV. WILFUL NEGLECT OF CEREMONIAL RITES DISSOLVED THE RELATION.
+
+Suppose the servants from the heathen had, upon entering Jewish
+families, refused circumcision; if _slaves_, how simple the process of
+emancipation! Their _refusal_ 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;"
+_excommunicated_. Ex. xii. 19; xxx. 33; Num. xix. 16.
+
+V. SERVANTS OF THE PATRIARCHS NECESSARILY VOLUNTARY.
+
+Abraham's servants are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred
+and eighteen _young men_ "born in his house," and many more _not_ 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] 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.
+
+[Footnote 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!" "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.
+
+"Mr. Pettis will attend promptly to all law business confided to him.
+
+"N.B. New York City is estimated to contain 5,000 Runaway Slaves.
+
+"PETTIS." ]
+
+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 _fact_ 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.
+
+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
+_desire_." Job. xxxi. 16. Of course he could hardly have made them live
+with him, and forced them to work for him against _their desire_.
+
+When Isaac sojourned in the country of the Philistines he "had _great
+store_ 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?
+
+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 _compel_ 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 _their own choice_,
+and that they regarded their own interests as inseparably identified
+with those of their masters. Neh. iv. 23.
+
+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 _no servants_. Yet we are told that Jacob "took his
+journey with _all that he had_." 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 _all that they have_, are come." Gen. xlvii.
+1. The servants doubtless, served under their _own contracts_, and when
+Jacob went into Egypt, they _chose_ to stay in their own country.
+
+The government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until
+their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex.
+xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their
+_servants_. To give the master a _right_ 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 _buy_ a servant, equally
+annihilates the servant's _right of choice_." 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 _another_ man.[A]
+
+[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose
+of even the _services_ 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.]
+
+Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were
+bought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ 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."[B]
+
+[Footnote B: 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."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV.
+Sec. XI. Jarchi, on the same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse her
+to be his wife, for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her
+_espousal_."]
+
+VII. VOLUNTARY SERVANTS FROM THE STRANGERS.
+
+We infer that _all_ 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 _wages_ to their _free choice_, 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 _ask_ one man to engage in their service, and _drag_ 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?
+
+VIII. HEBREW SERVANTS VOLUNTARY.
+
+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 _choice_ 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 _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to
+get rid of him.
+
+IX. THE MANNER OF PROCURING SERVANTS, AN APPEAL TO CHOICE.
+
+The Israelites were commanded to offer them a suitable inducement, and
+then leave them to decide. They might neither seize them by _force_, nor
+frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false pretences, nor
+_borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to BUY
+them[A]--that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the individuals
+to _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to _refuse all
+offers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their own work_.
+Suppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become servants, what
+provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency? NONE.
+
+[Footnote 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, _stands by itself_, and has nothing to do with the
+condition of servants.]
+
+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 _they shall_ CLEAVE to the house of Jacob, and the house of Israel
+shall possess them in the land of the Lord, for servants and handmaids."
+
+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 _bodies_ and
+our lands; _buy_ 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.
+
+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 _their
+own choice_. "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 _Jew_. 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 _its_
+servants. To make this clear, he refers to one of their own
+institutions, that of _domestic service_, 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 _chooses_ the service of
+the one, and _spurns_ that of the other. "He shall _hold to_ the one and
+_despise_ (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 _spurns_ one of two masters, makes it impossible
+for him to serve _that one_, if he spurned _both_ it would make it
+impossible for him to serve _either_. 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 _his own will_.
+Further, the phraseology of the passage shows that the _choice_ of the
+servant decided the question. "He will HOLD TO the one,"--hence there is
+no difficulty in the way of his serving _him_; but "no servant can
+serve" a master whom he does not "_hold to_," or _cleave_ to, whose
+service he does not _choose_. This is the sole ground of the
+impossibility asserted by our Lord.
+
+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 _choice_ of the individual.
+
+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 _rich_ strangers did not become servants
+to the Israelites, we infer that those who _did_, became such not
+because they were _strangers_, but because they were _poor_,--not
+because, on account of their being heathen, they were _compelled by
+force_ to become servants, but because, on account of their _poverty_,
+they _chose_ to become servants to better their condition.
+
+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 _master_. 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 _voluntarily_ 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 "_clave_" to them. Neh. x. 28, 29; xi. 3; Ez.
+vii. 7.
+
+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 _compulsion_.
+
+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 _public_, lay great stress on the
+_willingness_ 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]
+
+[Footnote 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 _public_. Otherwise the Mosaic system,
+instead of constituting in its different parts a harmonious _whole_,
+would be divided against itself; its principles counteracting and
+nullifying each other.]
+
+Again, the voluntariness of servants is a natural inference from the
+fact that the Hebrew word _ebedh,_ uniformly rendered _servant_, is
+applied to a great variety of classes and descriptions of persons under
+the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, _all of whom_ were voluntary
+and most of them eminently so. For instance, it is applied to persons
+rendering acts of _worship_ about seventy times, whereas it is applied
+to _servants_ not more than half that number of times.
+
+To this we may add, that the illustrations drawn from the condition and
+service of _servants_ 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 _resisted_ his service, and he performed it only by
+_compulsion_. Many passages will at once occur to those who are familiar
+with the Bible. We give a single example. "_To whom YE YIELD YOURSELVES
+servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey._" 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.
+
+
+
+III. WERE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY
+
+As the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it
+would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their
+becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they
+_were paid_ for their labor, we argue.
+
+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 _rea_, translated _neighbor_,
+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 _paid_
+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 _do judgment and
+justice_, and then it was well with him. He _judged the cause of the
+poor and needy_; then it was well with him. But thine eyes and thine
+heart are not but for thy _covetousness_, and for to shed innocent
+blood, and for _oppression_, and for violence to do it." Jer. xxii. 15,
+16. 17.[A]
+
+[Footnote 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 _right_ 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 _by fraud_, crieth." James v. 4. As
+though he had said, "wages are the _right_ of laborers; those who work
+for you have a just claim on you for _pay_; this you refuse to render,
+and thus _defraud_ them by keeping from them what _belongs_ to them."
+See also Mal. iii 5.]
+
+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 _verbatim_ 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! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others
+as we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ 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."
+
+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 _redeemed,_ either by his
+kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been forced to sell himself from poverty,
+he must have acquired considerable property _after_ 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]) 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.[B] 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 _owner of a house_.
+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 _wages_ 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;[C] and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the
+_relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and now, yet we have enough to
+warrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value
+_then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing
+a large amount of money? They _"know how to take care of themselves"_
+quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on
+such a small scale, or in the taking of _such things_ 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 _proficients_ in the art, who drive the
+business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their
+betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at
+a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ 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 _Right_ and _Very
+Reverends!_ 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
+_situation_, 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 _slay_ one who
+would slay him?"]
+
+
+[Footnote C: The Nethinims, which name was afterwards given to the
+Gibeonites on account of their being _set apart_ 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.]
+
+Again. The Israelites often _hired_ servants from the strangers. Deut.
+xxiv. 17.
+
+Since then it is certain that they gave wages to a part of their
+Canaanitish servants, thus recognizing their _right_ to a reward for
+their labor, we infer that they did not rob the rest of their earnings.
+
+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 _right and just
+in itself_, 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!
+
+The parable of our Lord, contained in Mat. xviii. 23-34, not only
+derives its significance from the fact, that servants can both _own_ and
+_owe_ and _earn_ 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 _owe_ him ten thousand talents. From the
+fact that the servant _owed_ this to his master, we naturally infer,
+that he must have been at some time, and in some way, the responsible
+_owner_ 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 _agent_, for in that case no claim of
+_debt_ for value received would lie, but, that having sustained the
+responsibilities of legal _proprietorship_, he was under the liabilities
+resulting therefrom. 3. Not having on hand wherewith to pay, he says to
+his master "have patience with me _and I will pay thee all_." If the
+servant had been his master's _property_, 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
+_proprietor_ of his earnings, but that his master had _full knowledge_
+of that fact.--In a word, the supposition that the master was the
+_owner_ of the servant, would annihilate all legal claim upon him for
+value received, and that the servant was the _property_ of the master,
+would absolve him from all obligations of debt, or rather would always
+_forestall_ such obligations--for the relations of owner and creditor in
+such case, would annihilate each other, as would those of _property_ and
+_debtor_. 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.
+
+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 _husbandmen_ 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
+_handmaid_ (or _maid-servant_,) that is _heir_ 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?
+
+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 _acquiring_
+property to meet these expenditures.
+
+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]
+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 _Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason,
+_they did not go out in the seventh year,_ but continued until the
+jubilee. If the fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such a
+_gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_, it proves
+that the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs
+also; a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators,
+however unscrupulous.
+
+[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as
+follows--"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say,
+_'Loading, ye shall load him,'_ 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 _you, not
+less than thirty shekels,_ which is the valuation of a servant, as
+declared in Ex. xxi. 32."--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec.
+3.]
+
+VII. SERVANTS WERE BOUGHT. In other words, they received compensation in
+advance.[A] Having shown, under a previous head, that servants _sold
+themselves_, 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,[B] 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.
+
+[Footnote 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 _authority_ and of
+course, from all those liabilities of injury, to which _as his servant_,
+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 _that
+particular way_, that is, _by working for him as his servant_.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and
+boys at thirteen years.]
+
+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 _right_ of the servant to the _use_ of himself
+and all this powers, faculties and personal conveniences, and
+consequently his just claim for remuneration, upon him, who should
+however _unintentionally_, deprive him of the use even of the least of
+them. If the servant had a right to his _tooth_ and the use _of_ 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 _fraction_, and if it was his to
+hold, to use, and to have pay for; he had a right to the _sum total_,
+and it was his to hold, to use, and to have pay for.
+
+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.
+
+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 "_do justice_" to others? By doing injustice to
+_them_? Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back
+_their own_? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire"
+by robbing them of _theirs_? 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 _Aristides_ in justice, then illustrious examples,
+patriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway
+against human perverseness!
+
+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 _particular_ kind of service, _all_ kinds; and
+a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal
+ministering to man in a _certain_ 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
+_a brute_, what would be a meet return for the services of _man?_--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
+_reward_. 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 _same_
+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 the same breath, authorize
+them to "use his service without wages;" force him to work and ROB HIM
+OF HIS EARNINGS?
+
+
+
+IV.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY?
+
+This topic has been unavoidably somewhat anticipated, in the foregoing
+discussion, but a variety of additional considerations remain to be
+noticed.
+
+I. 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_. 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 _servants_ were taken in _no instance_. 2. _Servants were
+never given as pledges_. _Property_ of all sorts was pledged for value
+received; household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets,
+personal ornaments, &c., but no servants. 3. _Servants were not put into
+the hands of others, or consigned to their keeping_. 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 _beast_," but not "_servants_."
+Ex. xxii. 10. 4. _All lost property was to be restored_. Oxen, asses,
+sheep, raiment, and "all lost things," are specified--servants _not_.
+Deut. xxii 1-3. Besides, the Israelites were forbidden to return the
+runaway servant. Deut. xxiii, 15. 5. _Servants were not sold_. 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 _expelled_ from the household. Luke xvi. 2-4; 2
+Kings v. 20, 27; Gen. xxi. 14. 6 _The Israelites never received servants
+as tribute_. 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
+_servants_, never. 7. _The Israelites never gave away their servants as
+presents_. 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 _gifts_. 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 _no servants_. "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 _articles of property_, 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 _religion_--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!" Again, it may be
+objected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If
+that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ 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 _greatness_ and
+_power_ of any one, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a
+word, if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants;
+if _greatness_, 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 _all_ 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 _great_, and went forward, and grew until he became
+_very great_. For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds,
+and _great store of servants_." In immediate connection with this we
+find Abimelech the king of the Philistines saying to him. "Thou art much
+_mightier_ 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 _do us no
+hurt_." Gen. xxvi. 13, 14, 16, 26, 28, 29.--A plain concession of the
+_power_ which Isaac had both for aggression and defence in his "great
+store of _servants_;" 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 _riches_ of Abraham and his sons, they say, "Shall not
+their _cattle_ and their _substance_ and _every beast of theirs_ 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
+_riches_ 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 _most valuable_ 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 _all that they
+had_. "Their cattle and their goods which they had gotten in the land of
+Canaan," "Their flocks and their herds" are mentioned, but no
+_servants_. And as we have besides a full catalogue of the _household_,
+we know that he took with him no servants. That Jacob _had_ many
+servants before his migration into Egypt, we learn from Gen, xxx. 43;
+xxxii. 5, 16, 19. That he was not the _proprietor_ 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
+_property_. Gen. xlv. 10; xlvi. 1, 32; xlvii. 1. When servants are
+spoken of in connection with _mere property_, the terms used to express
+the latter do not include the former. The Hebrew word _mikne_, is an
+illustration. It is derived from _kana_, to procure, to buy, and its
+meaning is, a _possession, wealth, riches_. It occurs more than forty
+times in the Old Testament, and is applied always to _mere property_,
+generally to domestic animals, but never to servants. In some instances,
+servants are mentioned in distinction from the _mikne_. "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 _souls_ were a part of Abraham's _substance_
+(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 "_the souls that they had gotten?_" 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] 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,[B] "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 _persons_ 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 _persons_ of his
+house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his _substance_ which
+he had got in the land of Canaan, and went into the country from the
+face of his brother Jacob. For their _riches_ were more than that they
+might dwell together; and the land could not bear them because of their
+_cattle_." Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7.
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+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 _betrothed as a wife_,
+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 _both_ 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 _servant_ 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 _chiefest seat_ at the
+table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of Kish, Saul's father; not the
+steward or the chief of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but "_one_ of
+the servants;" _any_ 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 "_stood before him_." "And Saul sent to Jesse, saying,
+let David, I pray thee, _stand before me_." 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, _was
+the son of a_ 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.
+
+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 _rights_ 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 _free speech_ 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 _despised_ 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 _contended_ 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.
+
+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 _him_? and
+did not one fashion us in the womb." In the next verse Job glories in
+the fact that he has not "_withheld from the poor their desire_." Is it
+the "desire" of the poor to be _compelled_ by the rich to work for them,
+and without _pay_?
+
+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. _It was voluntary_. 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. _They were not domestic servants in the families of
+the Israelites_. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated
+their own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the
+functions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were
+subject to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. 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 _at home_.
+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
+_national tribute_ to the Israelites, for the privilege of residence and
+protection under their government. No service seems to have been
+required of the _females_. 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 _them_ to the
+condition of chattels, if there was _any_ case in which God permitted
+them to do so.
+
+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?
+
+1. _They were not dispersed among the families of Egypt,[A] but formed a
+separate community_. Gen. xlvi. 34. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi.
+7; iv. 29; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5; vi. 14. 2. _They had the exclusive
+possession of the land of Goshen,[B] "the best part of the land" of
+Egypt_. 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. _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were
+_houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 7, 22, the two side _posts_, and the
+upper door _posts_, and the lintel of the houses are mentioned. Each
+family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_. 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. _They owned "flocks and herds," and "very
+much cattle_." Ex. xii. 4, 6, 32, 37, 38. From the fact that "_every
+man_" 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 _suffice_ them." As these six
+hundred thousand were only the _men_ "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. _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
+_tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16,
+18. 6. _They had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own
+time._ Ex. iii. 16, 18; xii. 6; ii. 9; and iv. 27, 29-31. _They seem to
+have practised 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; and both males and females were able
+to read and write. Deut. xi. 18-20; xvii. 19; xxvii. 3. 10. _Service
+seems to have been exacted from none but adult males_. 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.
+_Their food was abundant and of great variety_. 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 _there_ 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 _at any one time_. 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 _eight weeks_. 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 _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_) they
+exacted it of them in brick making; and labor might have been exacted
+only from the _poorer_ 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. 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 "quart of corn a-day," the legal allowance of food![C] their
+_only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ shirt and _one_ pair of
+pantaloons!"[D]_two hours and a half_ only, for rest and refreshment in
+the twenty-four![E]--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfit for human
+residence, with but one apartment, where both sexes and all ages herd
+promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field.[F] Add to this,
+the ignorance, and degradation;[G] 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 those believe who can, that God commissioned
+his people to rob others of _all_ their rights, while he denounced
+against them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_
+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 _Lawgiver_,
+did he _create_ 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?"
+
+[Footnote C: 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 _peck of
+corn a week._" The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser of May 30,
+1788, says, "a _single peck of corn a week, or the like measure of
+rice_, is the ordinary quantity of provision for a _hard-working_ slave;
+to which a small quantity of meat is occasionally, though _rarely_,
+added."
+
+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 _great part_ of them
+go _half naked_ and _half starved_ much of the time." See Minutes of the
+American Convention, convened in Baltimore, Oct. 25, 1826.
+
+Rev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee, and for many years a preacher
+in slave states, says of the food of slaves, "It _often_ happens that
+what will _barely keep them alive_, is all that a cruel avarice will
+allow them. Hence, in some instances, their allowance has been reduced
+to a _single pint of corn each_, 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. _Thousands of them are pressed with the gnawings of cruel
+hunger during their whole lives._" Rankin's Letters on Slavery, pp. 57,
+58.
+
+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 _hominy_, or baked
+into corn bread. The other six months, they are fed upon the sweet
+potatoe. Meat, when given, is only by way of _indulgence or favor_."
+_See "Refutation of the Calumnies circulated against the Southern and
+Western States," by a South Carolinian. Charleston_, 1822.
+
+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
+_good deal of suffering_ from hunger. On many plantations, and
+particularly in Louisiana, the slaves are in a condition of _almost
+utter famishment_ during a great portion of the year."
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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, _you doom them to scarcity and hunger_. 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 _where they are_ 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. ]
+
+
+[Footnote D: 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 "_he knew_ 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." Rev. John Rankin
+says, in his Letters on slavery, page 57, "In every slaveholding state,
+_many slaves suffer extremely_, both while they labor and while they
+sleep, _for want of clothing_ 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 _on the cold ground they must lie without covering, and shiver
+while they slumber_." ]
+
+
+[Footnote E: See law of Louisiana, act of July 7, 1806, Martin's Digest,
+6, 10-12. The law of South Carolina permits the master to _compel_ 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 _four hours_ after sunset!--See 2 Brevard's Digest, 243. The
+preamble of this law commences thus: "Whereas, _many_ owners of slaves
+_do confine them so closely to hard labor that they have not sufficient
+time for natural rest:_ 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:--
+
+"The labor of Slaves in Louisiana is _not_ severe, unless it be at the
+rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months, then they
+work _both night and day_. 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, _"Both in summer and winter_ the slaves must
+be _in the field_ by the _first dawn of day."_ And yet he says, "the
+labor of the slave is _not severe_, except at the rolling of sugars!"
+The work abounds in eulogies of slavery.
+
+In the "History of South Carolina and Georgia," vol. 1, p. 120, is the
+following: "_So laborious_ is the task of raising, beating, and cleaning
+rice, that had it been possible to obtain European servants in
+sufficient numbers, _thousands and tens of thousands_ MUST HAVE
+PERISHED."
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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 _be in the field as soon as it
+is light enough for them to see to work_, and remain there until it is
+_so dark that they cannot see_. This is the case at all seasons of the
+year."
+
+President Edwards, in the sermon already extracted from, says, "The
+slaves are kept at hard labor from _five o'clock in the morning till
+nine at night_, excepting time to eat twice during the day."
+
+Hon. R.J. Turnbull, a South Carolina slaveholder, already quoted,
+speaking of the harvesting of cotton, says: _"All the pregnant women_
+even, on the plantation, and weak and _sickly_ negroes incapable of
+other labor, are then _in requisition_." * * * See "Refutation of the
+Calumnies circulated against the Southern and Western States," by a
+South Carolinian. ]
+
+
+[Footnote F: A late number of the "Western Medical Reformer" contains a
+dissertation by a Kentucky physician, on _Cachexia Africana_, or African
+consumption, in which the writer says--
+
+"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 _crowded_
+together in a _small hut_, 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."
+
+Hon. R.J. Turnbull, of South Carolina, whose testimony on another point
+has been given above, says of the slaves, that they live in "_clay
+cabins_, 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 _cannot_ 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. ]
+
+
+[Footnote G: 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." 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
+_will_ not use the means to have it read and explained to them." Jones'
+Sermon, pp. 7, 9.
+
+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 _two millions_ of _human beings_, in the condition of
+HEATHEN, and, in some respects, _in a worse condition_!" * * * "From
+long continued and close observation, we believe that their moral and
+religious condition is such, as that they may justly be considered the
+_heathen_ of this Christian country, and will _bear comparison with
+heathen in any country in the world_." * * * "The negroes are destitute
+of the privileges of the gospel, and _ever will be under the present
+state of things."_ Report, &c., p. 4.
+
+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 _extensive as our influence_, as appalling as the valley of death."
+
+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.
+
+"_Augusta, Jan. 29, 1835._
+
+"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 _left their souls to perish_, say
+when they go with them to the judgment of the great day?"
+
+"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 _without the pale of Christendom_. 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."
+
+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
+_general_ 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.)"
+
+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. _Chastity is no virtue among
+them_--its violation neither injures female character in their own
+estimation, or that of their master or mistress--no instruction is ever
+given, _no censure pronounced_. I speak not of the world. I SPEAK OF
+CHRISTIAN FAMILIES GENERALLY."
+
+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 _heathens_.
+* * 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 _perhaps_ their house
+servants; while those called "field hands" live, and labor, and die,
+without being told by their _pious_ masters (?) that Jesus Christ died
+to save sinners."
+
+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. ]
+
+We now proceed to examine the various objections which will doubtless be
+set in array against all the foregoing conclusions.
+
+
+
+OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+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 _cause_ desperate, and themselves.
+Meanwhile their invocations for help to "those good old slaveholders and
+patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,"[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 _Cain-mark_, 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!
+
+[Footnote 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. "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."
+
+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 _lord_ over thy
+brethren and let thy mother's sons _bow down_ to thee." And afterwards,
+addressing Esau, he says, speaking of the birth-right immunities
+confirmed to Jacob, "Behold I have made him thy _Lord_ and all his
+brethren have I GIVEN TO HIM FOR SERVANTS!"
+
+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 _children_ as slaves and bequeathing them as
+property to his heirs! Better still, it proves that the favorite
+practice amongst our slaveholders of bequeathing their _colored_
+children to those of a different hue, was a "Divine institution," for
+Isaac "_gave_" Esau, who was "_red_ all over," to Jacob, "_as a
+servant_." 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 _property_, and the rest, their _proprietors_, 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 _rightful_ property after he was "given to him" by
+Isaac "for a servant," the difference in _hair_ as well as color, is
+expressly stated by inspiration!)
+
+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 _designedly_ neglecting this authoritative
+precedent, and their admirable zeal to perpetuate patriarchal fashions,
+proves this seeming neglect, a mere _oversight_: 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 _some_ of his children, all his
+slaves, to add a supplement, informing them that such and such and such
+of them were their _brothers and sisters_. Doubtless it would be at
+first a sore trial also, but what _pious_ slaveholder would not be
+sustained under it by the reflection that he was humbly following in the
+footsteps of his illustrious patriarchal predecessors!
+
+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 _concubinage_, 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. ]
+
+OBJECTION I. "_Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto
+his brethren._" Gen. ix. 25.
+
+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 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, _assume_ as usual all the points
+in debate. 1. That _slavery_ was prophesied, rather than mere _service_
+to others, and _individual_ bondage rather than _national_ subjection
+and tribute. 2. That the _prediction_ of crime justifies it; or at least
+absolves those whose crimes fulfil it. How piously the Pharaohs might
+have quoted the prophecy, "_Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that
+is not theirs, and they shall afflict them four hundred years._" 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 _named_,
+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 "_younger_ son" cannot be Canaan, as he was the _grandson_ of
+Noah, and therefore it must be Ham. We answer, whoever that "_younger
+son_" was, Canaan alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word
+_Ben_, signifies son, grandson, or _any one_ of the posterity of an
+individual.[A] "_Know ye Laban, the_ SON (grandson) _of Nahor_?" Gen.
+xxix. 5. "_Mephibosheth the_ SON (grandson) _of Saul_." 2 Sam. xix. 24;
+2 Sam. ix. 6. "_The driving of Jehu the_ SON (grandson) _of Nimshi_." 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 "_younger_ son." The order of
+enumeration makes him the _second_ 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 _rule_, in any
+other order the _exception_. 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 _Hakkatan_ rendered "the
+_younger_," means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isa. lx.
+22. "A LITTLE ONE _shall become a thousand_." Isa. xxii. 24. "_All
+vessels of_ SMALL _quantity_." Ps. cxv. 13. "_He will bless them that
+fear the Lord both_ SMALL _and great_." Ex. xviii, 22. "_But every_
+SMALL _matter they shall judge_." It would be a literal rendering of
+Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus, "when Noah knew what his little
+son,"[B] or grandson (_Beno Hakkatan_) "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 _fraction_ 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 _at home_, we answer: _It is false in point of fact_,
+though zealously bruited often to serve a turn; and _if it were true_,
+how does it help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan, a
+servant of servants shall he be _unto his_ BRETHREN.," not unto
+_himself!_
+
+[Footnote A: So _av_, the Hebrew word for father, signifies any
+ancestor, however remote. 2 Chron. xvii. 3; xxviii. 1; xxxiv. 2; Dan. v.
+2.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: The French follows the same analogy; _grandson_ being
+_petit fils_ (little son.)]
+
+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 offence should not be
+_capital_? 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 _murder_?
+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 _the intent_, 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 _motive_ and find out whether
+the master _designed_ to kill. 1. "If a man smite his servant with a
+_rod_."--The instrument used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num.
+xxxv. 16-18. A _rod_, not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any
+other death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to
+_kill_ would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a
+_rod_ for its weapon. But if the servant "_die under his hand_," then
+the unfitness of the instrument, is point blank against him; for,
+striking with a _rod_ so as to cause death, presupposed very many blows
+and great violence, and this kept up till the death-gasp, showed an
+_intent to kill_. Hence "He shall _surely_ be punished." But if he
+continued a day or two, the _length of time that he lived_, the _kind_
+of instrument used, and the master's pecuniary interest in his _life_,
+("he is his _money_,") all made a strong case of presumptive evidence,
+showing that the master did not _design_ to kill. Further, the word
+_nakam_, here rendered _punished_, occurs thirty-five times in the Old
+Testament, and in almost every place is translated "_avenge_," in a few,
+"_to take vengeance_," or "_to revenge_," and in this instance ALONE,
+"_punish_." As it stands in our translation, the pronoun preceding it,
+refers to the _master_, whereas it should refer to the _crime_, and the
+word rendered _punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. 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, _by avenging it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of
+the servant shall be _avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the
+next verse, "If he continue a day or two," his death is not to be
+avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as in that case the crime was to
+be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not _murder_. In the following verse,
+another case of personal injury is stated, for which the injurer is to
+pay _a sum of money_; 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 _avenged_," 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 _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury,
+in the following verse, God says, "He shall surely be _fined_,
+(_anash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges determine." The simple meaning
+of the word _anash_, 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 (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of silver and
+a talent of gold." That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither
+imprisonment, nor stripes, nor a fine but that it was _taking the
+master's life_ we infer, 1. From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. 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 _uttermost_." 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 _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an
+_article of property_. 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) _is_ my body;" "all they (the Israelites)
+_are_ brass and tin;" this (water) _is_ the blood of the men who went in
+jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord God _is_ a sun;" "the seven good
+ears _are_ seven years;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "God
+_is_ a consuming fire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A passion for the exact
+_literalities_ of the Bible is too amiable, not to be gratified in this
+case. The words in the original are (_Káspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ 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
+_solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble
+withal--reasoning against _"forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and,
+Deut. xxiii. 15, quite outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase,
+"_He is his money_," is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since,
+if the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his
+pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the
+fact of his living sometime after the injury_, (if the master _meant_ to
+kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it.) all together make a
+strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master from _intent to
+kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One is, that as
+the master might dispose of his _property_ 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 _equally_ his property, and
+the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely
+punished" for destroying _his own property_! The other inference is,
+that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of
+_intent to kill_, 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 _pecuniary
+loss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ 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 _adequate_ to the desert of the master,
+admits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ 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 _new_
+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 _pecuniary loss_ 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,--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same_. 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 _tooth_? Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_,
+the loss of the servant's services was only a part of the
+punishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the
+main punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the
+_community_. To set the servant _free_, 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, 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 his tooth--thus redressing the _public_ 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.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+The _points_ 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."
+
+We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from these
+terms.
+
+1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called
+"_bondmen_," while others are called "_servants_," 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 "_ebedh_," the plural of which is here translated
+"_bondmen_," is often applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_ (bondman,
+slave?) whom I uphold." Isa. xlii. 1. "Behold my _servant_ (Christ)
+shall deal prudently." Isa. lii. 13. "And he said it is a light thing
+that thou (Christ) shouldst be my _servant_." Isa. xlix. 6. "To a
+_servant_ of rulers." Isa. xlix. 7. "By his knowledge shall my righteous
+_servant_ (Christ) justify many." Is. liii. 11. "Behold I will bring
+forth my _servant_ 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 _servant_ unto this people, then they will be thy _servants_
+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 _individuals
+or families_, about thirty-five times in the Old Testament. To designate
+_tributaries_ about twenty-five times. To designate the _subjects of
+government_, 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 _merely to designate them as the performers of such service_,
+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 _force_, 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 _lord_
+and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, and to the Messiah. To argue from
+the meaning of the word _ebedh_ 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 _any_ 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 _abadh_, to serve,
+answering to the noun _ebedh_ (servant). It is used in the Old Testament
+to describe the _serving_ 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 _worshippers_ more than forty times, of
+_tributaries_, about thirty five, and of servants or domestics, about
+_ten_.
+
+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 _meant slave_? 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 "_ebedh_," yet he "_owned_" (!) twenty _ebedhs_!
+In our language, we have both _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we
+have both the _things_, and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a
+sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but
+our dictionaries give us none. Why? Because there is no such _thing_.
+But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _ebedh_
+if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. Their _national_
+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 _heathen laws and usages_, proclaimed their liabilities; their
+_locality_ made a _specific_ term unnecessary. But if the Israelites had
+not only _servants_, but a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning
+slave_, 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.
+
+2. "BUY." The _buying_ of servants, is discussed at length. pp. 17-23.
+To that discussion the reader is referred. We will add in this place but
+a single consideration. This regulation requiring the Israelites to
+_"buy"_ servants of the heathen, prohibited their taking them without
+buying. _Buying_ supposes two parties: a _price_ demanded by one and
+paid by the other, and consequently, the _consent_ of both buyer and
+seller, to the transaction. Of course the command to the Israelites to
+_buy_ servants of the heathen, prohibited their getting them unless they
+first got _somebody's_ consent to the transaction, and paid to
+_somebody_ a fair equivalent. Now, who were these _somebodies_? This at
+least is plain, they were not _Israelites_, but heathen. "Of _them_
+shall ye buy." Who then were these _somebodies_, whose right was so
+paramount, that _their_ consent must be got and the price paid must go
+into _their_ pockets? Were they the persons themselves who became
+servants, or some _other_ persons. "Some _other_ 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.
+
+"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 _neighbors_, get _their_
+consent that you may have him, settle the terms with _them_, and pay to
+them a fair equivalent. If it is not _their_ choice to let him go, I
+charge you not to take him on your peril. If _they_ consent, and you pay
+_them_ 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 _neighbors_ well for
+him, and respect _their_ free choice in taking him, for to deprive a
+heathen man by force and without pay of the _use of himself_ 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."
+
+3. "FOREVER." This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve during
+their life time, and their posterity from generation to generation.[A]
+No such idea is contained in the passage. The word "forever," instead of
+defining the length of _individual_ service, proclaims the permanence of
+the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their
+_permanent domestics_ 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 _always_ get your _permanent_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: One would think that the explicit testimony of our Lord
+should for ever forestall all cavil on this point. "_The servant abideth
+not in the house_ FOR EVER, but the Son, abideth ever." John viii. 35.]
+
+That "_forever_" refers to the permanent relations of a _community_,
+rather than to the services of _individuals_, is a fair inference from
+the form of the expression, "Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the
+_heathen_. 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 _these individuals_
+surviving those _after_ whom they are to live, the language used applies
+more naturally to a _body_ of people, than to _individual_ servants.
+Besides _perpetual_ service cannot be argued from the term _forever_.
+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 _Israelitish_ inhabitants alone. The command
+is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL _the inhabitants
+thereof_." 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 _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_.[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 _forever_ did refer to _individual_ service, we
+have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee. The same
+word defines the length of time which _Jewish_ 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 "_forever_" 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 _forever_, in the 46th verse, respects the
+_general arrangement_, and not _individual service_ the objection does
+not touch the argument. Besides, in the 46th verse, the word used is
+_Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that may be. Whereas
+in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning, a _cutting off_, or _to
+be cut off_; and the import of it is, that the owner of an inheritance
+shall not forfeit his _proprietorship_ 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 _redeem_ it, and even if that be not done,
+it shall not be "_cut off_," but shall revert to him at the jubilee.
+
+[Footnote 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 _free holders_ 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.]
+
+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 _nations_, and not to the
+_individual_ servants procured from the senations. The holding of
+servants as a _possession_ is discussed at large pp. 47-64. To what is
+there advanced we here subjoin a few brief considerations. We have
+already shown, that servants could not he held as a _property_
+possession, and inheritance; that they became such of their _own
+accord_, were paid wages, released from their regular labor nearly _half
+the days in each year_, thoroughly _instructed_ and _protected_ 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 _just such a condition_! 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 _nahal_ and _nahala_,
+inherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify _articles of
+property_. "The people answered the king and said, "we have none
+_inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean
+gravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of
+_property_? "Children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps.
+cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine _inheritance_."
+Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children,
+does he make them _articles of property_? Are forgiveness, and
+chattel-making, synonymes? "_I_ am their _inheritance_." Ezek. xliv. 28.
+"I shall give thee the heathen for thine _inheritance_." Ps. ii. 18. See
+also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov.
+xiv. 18.
+
+The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"_possession_," has
+been already discussed, pp. 47-64, 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 _joined_ with them, and
+_they shall CLEAVE to the house of Jacob_. And the people shall take
+them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel shall
+_possess_ 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."
+
+We learn from these verses, 1st. That these servants which were to be
+"_possessed_" 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 _possess_
+them for servants," i.e. shall _have_ them for servants.
+
+In the passage under consideration, "they shall be your _possession_,"
+the original word translated "possession" is _ahuzza_. The same word is
+used in Gen. xlvii. 11. "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren,
+and gave them a _possession_ in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlvii. 11. In
+what sense was Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites? Answer, in the
+sense of _having it to live in_, not in the sense of having it as
+_owners_. In what sense were the Israelites to _possess_ these nations,
+and _take them_ as an _inheritance for their children_? 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 _them_ shall ye buy male and female
+domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners 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 permanent
+resource." "And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ source of supply to
+whom your children after you shall resort for servants. ALWAYS, _of
+them_ 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 _class_ of persons from
+which they were to get their supply of servants, and the _way_ in which
+they were to get them.[A]
+
+[Footnote 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 _a
+Stranger to slavery_. The _buying_ of slaves _alone_ is permitted, but
+not stealing them."
+
+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 _slaves_, we have at all events, the
+testimony that the Israelites were prohibited to _subject_ a Stranger to
+that condition, or in other words, the free choice of the servant was
+not to be compelled. ]
+
+
+
+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.
+
+As only _one_ class is called "_hired_," it is inferred that servants of
+the other class were _not paid_ 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 "_hired_" is synonymous with _paid_, and that those
+servants not _called_ "hired," were _not paid_ for their labor, is a
+mere assumption. The meaning of the English verb to _hire_, is to
+procure for a _temporary_ use at a certain price--to engage a person to
+temporary service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew word
+"_saukar_." It is not used when the procurement of _permanent_ service
+is spoken of. Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who
+constituted a stationary part of the family, have been designated by the
+same term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinctions in
+this matter, are familiar as table-talk. In many families the domestics
+perform only the _regular_ 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 _paid_ help.) _Both_ classes are _paid_. One is
+permanent, and the other occasional and temporary, and _therefore_ in
+this case called "hired."[A] A variety of particulars are recorded
+distinguishing, _hired_ from _bought_ 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. "_Bought_" servants were paid in advance, (a
+reason for their being called _bought_,) and those that went out at the
+seventh year received a _gratuity_. Deut. xv. 12, 13. 2. The "hired"
+were paid _in money_, the "bought" received their _gratuity_, at least,
+in grain, cattle, and the product of the vintage. Deut. xv. 14. 3. The
+"hired" _lived_ 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
+_beside_ their wages. 5. Hired servants were expected to work more
+_constantly_, and to have more _working hours_ 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 _full_ day. No subtraction of
+time being made from it. So _a hireling's year_ signifies an entire year
+without abatement. Job. vii. 1; xiv. 6; Isa. xvi. 14; xxi. 16.
+
+[Footnote A: To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings because he is
+not called a _hired_ servant, is profound induction! If I employ a man
+at twelve dollars a month to work my farm, he is my "_hired_" man, but
+if _I give him such a portion of the crop_, or in other words, if he
+works my farm "_on shares_," every farmer knows that he is no longer
+called a "_hired_" 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 "_hired_" laborer, I _rob_ 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.]
+
+The "bought" servants, were, _as a class, superior to the hired_--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 _heir_, come let us kill him, _that the
+inheritance may be ours_." Luke xx. 14. In no instance does a _hired_
+servant inherit his master's estate. 3. Marriages took place between
+servants and their master's daughters. "Sheshan had a _servant_, 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
+_hired_ 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] 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
+_handmaids_, 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 _handmaid_." 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 _handmaid_. Also, Jer. ii. 14. Is Israel a
+servant? Is he a _home-born_?[B] WHY IS HE SPOILED? No such tie seems to
+have existed between _hired_ 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
+_lowest class_ 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 _he is poor_, 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 _hired_ servant thus
+distinguished. The _bought_ 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,
+_for all the goods of his master were in his hand_." 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 _disposal of property_. 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 _discretionary_
+power, was "accused of wasting his master's goods," and manifestly
+regulated with his debtors the _terms_ of settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8.
+Such trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.
+
+[Footnote A: "For the _purchased servant_ 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 _purchased_ 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Our translators in rendering it "Is he a home-born SLAVE,"
+were wise beyond what is written.]
+
+The inferior condition of _hired_ 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 _lowest_ 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 _hired_ 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 _hired_ servants." If _hired_ servants were the _superior_ class--to
+bespeak the situation, savored little of that sense of unworthiness that
+seeks the dust with hidden face, and cries "unclean." Unhumbled nature
+_climbs_; 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, _the lowest place_, 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 _hired_
+servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of
+winning beauty and pathos.
+
+It is manifest to every careful student of the Bible, that _one_ 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 _hired_ 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 _humility_, put it on stilts, and set it a
+strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in aping it.
+
+Israelites and Strangers belonged indiscriminately to _each_ class of
+the servants, the _bought_ and the _hired_. That those in the former
+class, whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the
+family circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been
+shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,
+merely _political_, the hired servants from the _Israelites_, were more
+favored than even the bought servants from the _Strangers_. 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. 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. To mitigate as much as possible such a calamity,
+the law released the Israelitish servant at the end of six[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. 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 _Stranger_ to
+_prolong_ his term of service;[B] 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 _permanent employment_, pursued both as a
+_means_ of bettering their own condition, and that of their posterity,
+and as an _end_ for its own sake, conferring on them privileges, and a
+social estimation not otherwise attainable.
+
+[Footnote 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
+_graduated_ 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 _becoming servants_ proclaimed such a state of their affairs,
+as demanded the labor of a _course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: The Stranger had the same inducements to prefer a long term
+of service that those have who cannot own land, to prefer a long
+_lease_.]
+
+We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are
+called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_,) 1. They
+followed it as a _permanent business_. 2. Their term of service was
+_much longer_ 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 _tributaries_, required to pay an
+annual tax to the government, either in money, or in public service,
+(called a _"tribute of bond-service;"_) in other words, all the
+Strangers were _national servants_, to the Israelites, and the same
+Hebrew word used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates
+_national_ 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. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought
+servants, was in their _kinds_ of service. The servants from the
+Strangers were properly the _domestics_, 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
+_agricultural_. 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, "_And behold Saul
+came after the herd out of the field_." 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 _was "threshing wheat"_ 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 _Jewish_ 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.[C] In short, it was in the earlier ages of the Mosaic system,
+practically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and a rigor grievous to be borne,
+as it annihilated a visible distinction between the descendants of
+Abraham and the Strangers. _To guard this and another fundamental
+distinction_, 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 _servitude_." In the Septuagint, "He shall not
+serve thee with the service of a _domestic_." 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."[D] The
+meaning of the passage is, _thou shalt not assign him to the same grade,
+nor put him to the same service, with permanent domestics._ The
+remainder of the regulation is--_"But as an hired servant and as a
+sojourner shall he be with thee."_ 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 _right_, 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 _dependence_ 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 _keeping back their wages._ To
+have taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, would
+have been pre-eminent "_rigor_;" 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 _assignment_ of his inheritance,
+but was working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its
+possession and control. But it was that of _the head of a family_, 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 _Israelite--Abraham is his father_ 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, _thou shalt not serve thyself with him,
+with the service of a servant_, guaranties his political privileges, and
+a kind and grade of service comporting with his character and relations
+as an Israelite. And "as a _hired_ 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 _alleviate_ 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 _irrespective_ 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 _rigorous_ in the extreme.[E] 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 _serve_ with rigor." This
+rigor is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted and the _mode_ 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.
+
+[Footnote C: 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote D: 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."]
+
+
+[Footnote E: 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 _social_ estimation. They were regarded according to their
+character and worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin,
+employments and political condition.]
+
+
+
+We are now prepared to review at a glance, the condition of the
+different classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each.
+
+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 _men_, with the rights, interests, hopes
+and destinies of _men_. In all these respects, _all_ classes of servants
+among the Israelites, formed but ONE CLASS. The _different_ classes, and
+the differences in _each_ class, were, 1. _Hired Servants_. This class
+consisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were
+different. The _Israelite_ was an agricultural servant. The Stranger was
+a _domestic_ and _personal_ servant, and in some instances _mechanical_;
+both were occasional and temporary. Both lived in their own families,
+their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work was done.
+2. _Bought Servants_, (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] and neither was temporary. The Israelitish servant, with the
+exception of the _freeholder_, 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 _Jewish_ 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 _freeholder_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, 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. This gratuity at the close of the service shews the _principle_ of
+the relation; _equivalent_ for value received. ]
+
+It should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the
+Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal, natural and
+religious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed
+by those of their own people who were _not_ servants. 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 _political_ and _national_. 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 _unjewish_.
+
+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 _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_. 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.
+
+
+
+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 _descendant of Abraham_ and a _Stranger_, 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 _permanent female
+domestics_; but her marriage did not release her master from _his_ 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
+_grade_ and _term_ of service, nor impair her obligation to fulfil _her_
+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.[B] 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 _their_
+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.
+
+[Footnote B: 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 _all_ this law which I set before you this day." Deut. iv.
+8.]
+
+
+
+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] 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 _one_ 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 _commuted_, 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 _enslave_
+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 _slave_, cheapens to nothing
+_universal human nature_, 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 _foundation_, the everlasting distinction between persons and
+things? To make a man a chattel, is not the _punishment_, but the
+_annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and, so far as it goes, of _all_
+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 _doctrines_. 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
+_individuals_, or merely of the _body politic_? The word _haram_, to
+destroy, signifies _national_, as well as individual destruction; the
+destruction of _political_ existence, equally with _personal_; of
+governmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects.
+Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to
+mean _personal_ 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 _destroy_ all
+the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies
+_turn their backs unto thee_." Ex. xxiii. 27. Here "_all their enemies_"
+were to _turn their backs_, and "_all the people_" to be "_destroyed_."
+Does this mean that God would let all their _enemies_ escape, but kill
+their _friends_, or that he would _first_ 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 _destroyed_ them from before
+you." In the 18th verse of the same chapter, it is said, "The Lord
+_drave out_ 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
+_dispossessed_ the Amorite which was in it." If these commands required
+the destruction of all the _individuals,_ 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 _individual extermination_ of those whose lives and
+interests it thus protects? These laws were given to the Israelites,
+long _before_ they entered Canaan; and they must have inferred from
+them, that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land were to _continue
+in it_, 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 "_dwelt among
+them_," 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 _stood not a man_ of _all_ their enemies before them." Josh. xxi.
+44. How can this be if the command to destroy, destroy utterly, &c.,
+enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the command to drive out,
+unconditional expulsion from the country, rather than their expulsion
+from the _possession_ or _ownership_ 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.[B] Josh. xxiii. 12, 13-16; 1. Sam. xii. 25. The Israelites _did_
+serve other Gods, and Jehovah _did_ execute upon them his
+threatenings--and thus himself _interpreted_ these threatenings. He
+subverted their _government_, dispossessed them of their land, divested
+them of national power, and made them _tributaries_, but did not
+_exterminate_ 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 _acquiesced_ 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.[C] 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 _kill_ him, straitly charged them, "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. 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 _all_ the Canaanites had
+thus submitted themselves to the Jewish theocracy, and conformed to the
+requirements of the Mosaic institutes, would not _all_ have been spared
+upon the same principle that _one_ was? Again, look at the multitude of
+_tributaries_ 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.[D] 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 _utterly destroy_ 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 _utterly destroyed_ 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 _cut off every male_" 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 _cities_, (and even those
+conditionally,) because, only the inhabitants of _cities_ are
+specified--"of the _cities_ 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
+_around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God commanded them, in certain
+cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with _any_ of them would be
+perilous--with the inhabitants of the _cities_ peculiarly, and of the
+_Canaanitish_ 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 _tributaries_--but if they came
+out against Israel in battle, the _men_ 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 _afar off_. 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 _whole
+system of directions preceding,_ commencing with the 10th, whereas it
+manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the 12th, 13th,
+and, 14th, making a distinction between those _Canaanitish_ cities that
+_fought_, and the cities _afar off_ that fought--in one case destroying
+the males and females, and in the other, the _males_ only. The offer of
+peace, and the _conditional preservation_, were as really guarantied to
+_Canaanitish_ 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 _not_ utterly
+exterminate them. Now, if entire and unconditional extermination was the
+command of God, it was _never_ obeyed by the Israelites, consequently
+the truth of God stood pledged to consign _them_ 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 * * _I shall do
+unto you as I thought to do unto them_." Num. xxxiii. 55, 56. As the
+Israelites were not exterminated, we infer that God did not pronounce
+_that_ doom upon them; and as he _did_ pronounce upon them the _same_
+doom, whatever it was, which they should _refuse_ to visit upon the
+Canaanites, it follows that the doom of unconditional _extermination_
+was _not_ 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 _not_ come out against Israel in battle, they
+would have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been "_destroyed
+utterly_." The great design was to _transfer the territory_ of the
+Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute sovereignty
+in every respect_; 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 _denationalized,_ 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;[E] 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. "_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;_ THEN SHALL
+THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE."
+
+[Footnote 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
+_falsified_.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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 _perish_, as the nations which the Lord
+destroyed before your face, _so_ 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 _destroyed_, and until thou perish
+quickly." "The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee until he
+have _consumed_ thee." "They (the 'sword,' 'blasting,' &c.) shall pursue
+thee until thou _perish_." "From heaven shall it come down upon thee
+until thou be _destroyed_." "All these curses shall come upon thee till
+thou be _destroyed_." "He shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck until
+he have _destroyed_ 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 _destroyed_ thee."
+All these, with other similar threatenings of _destruction_, are
+contained in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deut. See verses 20-25, 45,
+48, 51. In the _same_ chapter God declares that as a punishment for the
+same transgressions, the Israelites shall "be _removed_ 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote C: 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 _exterminate all the Canaanites_,
+their pledge to save them alive, was neither a repeal of the statute,
+nor absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ 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 _had_ passed their word
+to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than God's command?
+So Saul seems to have passed _his_ 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
+_remaining in any of the coast of Israel_, let seven of his sons be
+delivered," &c. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-6.]
+
+
+[Footnote D: 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote E: 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.]
+
+[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 _indices_, 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.]
+
+
+
+
+
+NO. 5.
+
+
+
+THE
+
+
+ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+THE
+
+
+POWER OF CONGRESS
+
+
+OVER THE
+
+DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+REPRINTED FROM THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, WITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+NEW-YORK:
+
+PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
+
+NO. 143 NASSAU-STREET.
+
+1838.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+This periodical contains 3 1/2 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 6 cts.;
+over 100, 10 cts.
+
+
+
+POWER OF CONGRESS
+
+
+OVER THE
+
+
+DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
+
+
+
+A civilized community presupposes a government of law. If that
+government be a republic, its citizens are the sole _sources_, as well
+as the _subjects_ 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, _in all cases whatsoever_, over
+such District." Congress may make laws for the District "in all
+_cases_," not of all _kinds_; not all _laws_ whatsoever, but laws "in
+all _cases_ whatsoever." The grant respects the _subjects_ of
+legislation, _not_ the moral nature of the laws. The law-making power
+every where is subject to _moral_ 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.
+
+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 _any where_. The exact
+import, therefore, of the clause "in all cases whatsoever," is, _on all
+subjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation_. 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.
+
+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 _single_ case only, why did they
+provide for "_all_ cases whatsoever?" Besides, this clause was opposed
+in many of the state conventions, because the grant of power was
+extended to "_all_ cases whatsoever," instead of being restricted to
+police regulations _alone_. 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 _police_ 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 _unlimited, unbounded authority_?" 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 _generally_, 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." (_See debates in the
+Virginia Convention_, p. 320.) In the forty-third number of the
+"Federalist," Mr. Madison says: "The indispensable necessity of
+_complete_ authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence
+with it."
+
+Finally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to
+the obvious import of its _terms_, and not in such a way as to restrict
+it to _police_ 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 _police and good government_ of said
+District," _which amendment was rejected_. Fourteen other amendments,
+proposed at the same time by Virginia, were _adopted_.
+
+The former part, of the clause under consideration, "Congress shall have
+power to exercise _exclusive_ legislation," gives sole jurisdiction, and
+the latter part, "in all cases whatsoever," defines the _extent_ of it.
+Since, then, Congress is the _sole_ 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 _any_ where, Congress is competent to do in the District
+of Columbia.
+
+
+
+STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.
+
+Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to argue the _real
+question_ at issue. 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?_
+
+In every government, absolute sovereignty exists _somewhere_. In the
+United States it exists primarily with the _people_, and _ultimate_
+sovereignty _always_ exists with them. In each of the States, the
+legislature possesses a _representative_ 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
+_people_ 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
+_the people_ 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 _the people_, clothed with all their functions, and as such
+competent, _during the continuance of the grant_, 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 _somewhere_--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."
+
+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
+_sovereignty_ 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 _it alone_. Maryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution
+_before_ 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, _secondly_, from the fact, that _slavery as a legal system, is
+the creature of legislation_. The law by _creating_ slavery, not only
+affirmed its _existence_ to be within the sphere and under the control
+of legislation, but equally, the _conditions_ and _terms_ of its
+existence, and the _question_ whether or not it _should_ exist. Of
+course legislation would not travel _out_ of its sphere, in abolishing
+what is _within_ 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 _yourself_, 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?
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?
+
+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. [_See__Brevard's Digest_, 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.
+
+The law of North Carolina prohibits the "immoderate" correction of
+slaves. If it has power to prohibit _immoderate_ correction, it can
+prohibit _moderate_ correction--_all_ 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.
+
+The Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power to make
+laws "to oblige the owners of slaves to _treat them with humanity_." 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 _humane_ treatment of the slaves. This grant of
+power to those legislatures empowers them to decide what _is_ and what
+is _not_ "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 _particulars_ of such treatment--gives power to exact it in all
+_respects--requiring_ certain acts, and _prohibiting_ others--maiming,
+branding, chaining together, allowing each but a quart of corn a day,[A]
+and but "one shirt and one pair of pantaloons" in six
+months[B]--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 "_humane_ 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 _oblige_"
+masters to practise "humane treatment"--they have the _power_ to
+_prohibit such_ treatment, and are bound to do it.
+
+[Footnote A: Law of North Carolina, Haywood's Manual, 524-5.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Law of Louisiana, Martin's Digest, 610.]
+
+The law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the holder,
+if he be also a _land_ holder, to separate them from the soil.[C] If it
+has power to prohibit the sale _without_ the soil, it can prohibit the
+sale _with_ it; and if it can prohibit the _sale_ as property, it can
+prohibit the _holding_ as property. Similar laws exist in the French,
+Spanish, and Portuguese colonies.
+
+[Footnote C: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law passed in 1705.
+(_Beverly's Hist. of Va._, 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.]
+
+The law of Louisiana requires the master to give his slaves a certain
+amount of food and clothing, (_Martin's Digest_, 610.) If it can oblige
+the master to give the slave _one_ 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.
+
+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,
+["_Reeve's Law of Baron and Femme_," p. 310-1.] Each of the laws
+enumerated above, does, _in principle_, abolish slavery; and all of them
+together abolish it _in fact_. True, not as a _whole_, and at a
+_stroke_, nor all in one place; but in its _parts_, by piecemeal, at
+divers times and places; thus showing that the abolition of slavery is
+within the boundary of _legislation_.
+
+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 _Constitutions_, 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 _never had_, and what _cannot_ pertain to it!
+The legislatures of those States have no power to abolish slavery,
+simply because their Constitutions have expressly _taken away_ 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 _restrict_ 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.
+
+The slaveholding States have recognised this power in their _laws_. 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 _free_." By a law of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792,
+a slave brought into the state and kept _there a year_, was _free_. The
+Maryland Court of Appeals at the December term 1813 (see case of Stewart
+_vs._ 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 _free_, being _emancipated_ 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 _with the exception of the sixth article which prohibits
+slavery_; 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.
+
+Slaveholding states have asserted this power _in their judicial
+decisions._ 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 _vs._ Coquillon, 14 Martin's La.
+Reps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter
+_vs._ 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 _vs._ Hopper, Washington's Circuit Court Reps. 508. This
+principle was also decided by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky; case of
+Rankin _vs._ Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407; see also, Wilson _vs._
+Isbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts _vs._ Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps.
+566. The State _vs._ Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise
+_vs._ 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.
+
+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 _legislative_ 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 _legislative_
+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 _law_." In a letter to Sir
+John Sinclair, he says: "There are in Pennsylvania, _laws_ for the
+gradual abolition of slavery, which neither Maryland nor Virginia have
+at present, but which nothing is more certain that that they _must
+have_, 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 _it must bear and adopt it_."--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 _name_ is his biography.
+
+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 _abolished_ 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
+_abolish_ 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 _law_.
+
+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."
+
+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
+_extermination_ from amongst us of slavery, is work worthy the
+representatives of a polished and enlightened nation."
+
+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.
+
+"The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on the
+subject of Abolition, was in these words: _Resolved_, 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 _was_ expedient,
+_now_ 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
+_negatived_, 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."
+
+8. _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 Louisiana made the same decision in the case of Forsyth
+_vs._ 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 _vs._ Chexnaider, 20 Martin's Reps. 699.
+
+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 _abridge_ the powers which Congress
+possessed under the articles of confederation?
+
+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 _technic_, in common
+parlance, that the fact of its being _proper slavery_ is overlooked. The
+buying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of the middle
+passage, were mere _incidents_ 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 _all_ the slavery within its
+jurisdiction, but it did abolish all the slavery in _one part_ of its
+jurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to abolish slavery in
+_another_ part of its jurisdiction, especially in that part where it has
+"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?"
+
+9. _The Constitution of the United States recognizes 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 _unconditionally_, 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 _laws_ of the free states. If these
+laws had _no power_ to emancipate, why this constitutional guard to
+prevent it?
+
+The insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists
+that framed the Constitution, to the existence of the _power_, 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 _universal law_,
+and is recognised and protected by all civilized nations; property in
+slaves is, by general consent, an _exception_; hence slaveholders
+insisted upon the insertion of this clause in the United States
+Constitution that they might secure by an _express provision_, that from
+which protection is withheld, by the acknowledged principles of
+universal law.[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 "_persons_, and _held_ to service."
+
+[Footnote 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 _now_ 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 "_for one moment_," under the laws
+of France emancipated an American slave--the case of Fulton, _vs._
+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 "_property_," but
+_self-proprietors_, and that whenever held as property under _law_, it
+is only by _positive legislative acts_, 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.]
+
+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 _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 _statute_ 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 _things_, as
+contra-distinguished from _persons_." 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
+_fundamental_ 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 _devotion to
+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
+embodiment of "_justice_" 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.
+
+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
+_principles themselves_, 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 _vs._
+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."
+[_See__Hall's Law Journal, new series._] Mr. Duponceau, in his
+"Dissertation on the Jurisdiction of Courts in the United States," says,
+"I consider the common law of England the _jus commune_ 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 _vs._ Reed, in 1823, Hawkes' N.C. Reps. 454, says, "a
+law of _paramount obligation to the statute_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _now_ 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.
+
+Is Congress so impotent in its own "exclusive jurisdiction" that it
+_cannot_ "otherwise by law provide?" If it can say, what _shall_ be
+considered property, it can say what shall _not_ 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 _bona
+fide_ 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
+
+
+
+THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN, TILL
+RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED.
+
+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 _inexpediency_ alone, and not because Congress lacked the
+constitutional power. In the debate which preceded the vote, the _power_
+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 _putting a
+stop to the same_."
+
+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
+_expediency_ of providing by _law_ 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.
+
+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, (_slavery_) as upon all
+other subjects of legislation, to exercise _unlimited discretion_."
+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 _unconstitutional_ 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."
+
+"Resolved, That Congress _ought not to interfere_ 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."
+
+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,
+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.
+
+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 _legislative_ 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 _excluding them when free_. See Journal H.R.
+1828-9, p. 174.
+
+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, 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."
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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 _implied_ 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
+_implication_. 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 _power_, 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.'"
+
+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 _as it is_. 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.
+
+The Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the _general_
+power of Congress over the subject of slavery, do virtually assert its
+_special_ power within its _exclusive_ jurisdiction.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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" _District_. 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 _here_? Within the
+ten miles square, you have _undoubted power_ to exercise exclusive
+legislation. _Produce a bill to emancipate the slaves in the District of
+Columbia_, or, if you prefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter."
+
+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?"
+
+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] 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 _special_ and _comprehensive_
+legislation which these circumstances peculiarly demanded."
+
+[Footnote 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 _every constitutional barrier should be
+interposed to prevent its further extension_: and that the constitution
+of the United States _clearly gives congress the right_ to require new
+states, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States,
+to _make the prohibition of slavery_ a condition of their admission into
+the Union: Therefore,
+
+"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 _the prohibition of
+slavery_ therein an indispensable condition of admission." ]
+
+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.
+
+After presenting this array of evidence, _direct testimony_ to show that
+the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, has always
+till recently been _universally conceded_, is perhaps quite superfluous.
+We subjoin; however, the following:
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+Finally--an explicit, and unexpected admission, that an "_over-whelming
+majority_" of the _present_ 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:
+
+"The time has arrived when we must have new guarantees under the
+constitution, or the union must be dissolved. _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_, NOT WITHOUT STRONG REASONS, _that the power of Congress
+extends to all of these subjects_."
+
+In another letter, the same correspondent says:
+
+"_The fact is, it is vain to attempt_, AS THE CONSTITUTION IS NOW, _to
+keep the question of slavery out of the halls of Congress_,--until, by
+some decisive action, WE COMPEL SILENCE, or _alter the constitution_,
+agitation and insult is our eternal fate in the confederacy."
+
+
+
+OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+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 _accept_ 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.
+
+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."
+
+"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.
+
+The cession from Virginia was made by act of the Legislature of that
+State on the 3d of December, 1788, in the following words:
+
+"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."
+
+But were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act had _none_.
+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 _soil_, or to affect the
+rights of individuals _therein_, otherwise than the same shall or may be
+transferred by such individuals to the United States."
+
+This specification touching the soil was merely definitive and
+explanatory of that clause in the act of cession, "_full and absolute
+right._" Instead of restraining the power of Congress on _slavery_ and
+other subjects, it even gives it wider scope; for exceptions to _parts_
+of a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the
+exceptions. If it was the _design_ of the proviso to restrict
+congressional action on the subject of _slavery_, why is the _soil
+alone_ 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 _meant_, though nothing was _said_ about it? The subject
+must have been too "delicate," even for the most distant allusion! The
+mystery of silence is solved!!
+
+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 _restricting_ 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, _accepting_ 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 _terms_ 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!
+
+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.
+
+This comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They _knew_ 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 _adopted_ the constitution. And _afterward_, 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
+_supposed_!" &c. Cede it they _did_, 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, _the amount of power over the
+District, lodged in Congress by the constitution_. 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 _not_--and that point is to be settled, not
+by state "suppositions," nor state usages, nor state legislation, but
+_by the terms of the clause themselves_.
+
+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 _declaimers_ 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
+_sovereignty_ mere creatures of _contingency_? Is delegated _authority_
+mere conditional _permission_? Is a _constitutional power_ to be
+exercised by those who hold it, only by popular _sufferance_? 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
+_whole_ people must be had--not that of a majority, however large.
+Majorities, to be authoritative, must be _legal_--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 _every one_ is necessary--and _universal_ 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 _to use_ a power which it _has not_? "It is
+required of a man according to what he _hath_," saith the Scripture. I
+commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would that he had got his
+_logic_ 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, _asking_ Congress to do what it _cannot_ do, gives it the
+power--to pray the exercise of a power that is _not, creates_ it. A
+beautiful theory! Let us work it both ways. If to petition for the
+exercise of a power that is _not_, creates it--to petition against the
+exercise of a power that _is_, 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
+_right_ to abolish slavery, they impose the _duty_; if they confer
+constitutional authority, they create constitutional obligation. If
+Congress _may_ abolish because of an expression of their will, it _must_
+abolish at the bidding of that will. If the people of the District are a
+_source of power_ to Congress, their _expressed 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 _subject_ 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.
+
+"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 _withheld_ 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 _guessing_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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?"
+
+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 _when slavery should cease_ 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.)
+
+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 _general belief_ 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.
+
+The first _general_ 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.
+
+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. _Anthony Benezet stood alone a few years ago in opposing
+negro slavery in Philadelphia_, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS OF THE PROVINCE AS
+WELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST IT."--(Stuart's Life of Sharpe, p.
+21.)
+
+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, _should be willing to extend personal
+liberty to others_, therefore," &c.
+
+October 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: "We,
+for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we
+represent, _firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue,
+honor, and love of our country_, as follows:
+
+"2d Article. _We will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported_
+after the first day of December next, after which time we will _wholly
+discontinue_ 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."
+
+The Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and the
+necessity for taking up arms, say: "_If it were possible_ for men who
+exercise their reason to believe that the Divine Author of our existence
+intended a part of the human race _to hold an absolute property in_, and
+_unbounded power over others_, 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."
+
+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 _increasing_, and _greatly spreading of late_, and
+_many_ who have had slaves, have found themselves so unable to justify
+their own conduct in holding them in bondage, as to be induced to _set
+them at liberty_. May this conviction soon reach every owner of slaves
+in _North America!_ Slavery is, _in every instance_, wrong, unrighteous,
+and oppressive--a very great and crying sin--_there being nothing of the
+kind equal to it on the face of the earth._"
+
+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." _Once_, these were words
+of power; _now_, "a rhetorical flourish."
+
+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."
+
+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, _that men are by nature free_; as accountable
+to him that made them, they must be so; and so long as we have any idea
+of divine _justice_, we must associate that of _human freedom_. Whether
+men can part with their liberty, is among the questions which have
+exercised the ablest writers; but it is _conceded on all hands, that the
+right to be free_ CAN NEVER BE ALIENATED--still less is it practicable
+for one generation to mortgage the privileges of another."
+
+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.
+
+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, _the way I hope preparing under the auspices of heaven_, 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."
+
+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, _the bulk of the people will approve of your pamphlet in
+theory_, and it will find a respectable minority ready to _adopt it in
+practice_--a minority which, for weight and worth of character,
+_preponderates against the greater number_." 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
+_great deal of good_; 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 _whose sentiments on the subject of slavery are
+unequivocal_. 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 _its influence on the future decision of this important
+question would be great, perhaps decisive_. Thus, you see, that so far
+from thinking you have cause to repent of what you have done, _I wish
+you to do more, and wish it on an assurance of its
+effect_."--Jefferson's Posthumous Works, vol. 1, p. 268.
+
+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:
+
+"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.
+
+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.
+
+In the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated a slave
+in 1784, is the following passage:
+
+"Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and cannot,
+without injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery."
+
+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 _ought to do it_."
+
+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:
+
+"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 _lately_ established, it has now
+become _generally extensive_ through this state, and, we fully believe,
+_embraces, on this subject, the sentiments of a large majority of its
+citizens_."
+
+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 _Virginia Society_,
+for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, &c." The following is an
+extract:
+
+"Your memorialists, fully believing that 'righteousness exalteth a
+nation,' and that slavery is not only an odious degradation, but an
+_outrageous violation of one of the most essential rights of human
+nature, and utterly repugnant to the precepts of the gospel_, 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."
+
+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:
+
+"It is our boast, that we live under a government founded on principles
+of justice and reason, wherein _life, liberty_, and the _pursuit of
+happiness_, 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 _abhor that inconsistent, illiberal, and
+interested policy, which withholds those rights, from an unfortunate and
+degraded class of our fellow creatures_."
+
+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.
+
+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 _more than forty days had been spent in adjusting
+the question of slavery, gave it his approval._ The act passed with only
+one dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of New-York,) _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_.
+
+In the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, afterward
+a Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, "_When the entire
+abolition of slavery takes place_, 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 _bring forward
+manumission."_ 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 _the gradual abolition of slavery,_ and the
+_emancipation of the slaves_ 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 _banishing slavery out of this country_. 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 _slaves will never be introduced_ among them. It
+presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will
+be acknowledged and established _throughout the Union_. Yet the lapse of
+a few years, and Congress will have power to _exterminate slavery_
+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 _diabolical_ 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, _unless they agree to a discontinuance of this
+disgraceful trade._" 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 _has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it
+will come round._"--[_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 _detested._ 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
+_it has received a mortal wound_, and will die of consumption."--[_Deb.
+Mass. Con._ p. 60.] General Heath said that, "Slavery was confined to
+the States _now existing, it could not be extended_. By their ordinance,
+Congress had declared that the new States should be republican States,
+and _have no slavery._"--p. 147.
+
+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 _with all the
+readiness the importance of its object demands_; and I cannot help
+expressing the pleasure I feel in finding _so considerable a part_ of
+the community attending to matters of such a momentous concern to the
+_future prosperity_ and happiness of the people of America. I think it
+my duty, as a citizen of the Union, _to espouse their cause_."
+
+Mr. Page, of Virginia, (afterward Governor)--"Was _in favor_ 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 _not_ 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, _from which
+was expected great good would result to_ EVERY CLASS _of citizens_, 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 _wait the decision patiently_."
+
+Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania: "I cannot, for my part, conceive how any
+person _can be said to acquire a property in another_; 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. _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_."
+
+Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, "He _saw the disposition of the
+House_, and he feared it would be referred to a committee, maugre all
+their opposition."
+
+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, _would, from motives of
+humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general emancipation_;
+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."
+
+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 _restore to human nature its inherent privileges_, and if possible,
+wipe off the stigma, which America labored under. The inconsistency in
+our principles, with which we are justly charged _should be done away_,
+that we may show by our actions the pure beneficence of the doctrine we
+held out to the world in our Declaration of Independence."
+
+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? _When this practice comes to
+be tried, then the sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it
+grateful to the ravished ear_."
+
+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 _give some testimony of the
+sense of America_, 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, _to vary
+the practice_ obtaining under some of the state governments, it is this.
+But it is _certain_ a majority of the states are _opposed to this
+practice_."--[Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.]
+
+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 _slaveholder_, says, "I have seen in the papers accounts of
+_large associations_, and applications to Government for _the abolition
+of slavery_. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free
+people, are the _noble principles which dictate those measures_.  SUCH
+MOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW."
+
+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 _free discussion_ 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 _licensed robbers_, and not the just proprietors of what they
+claim. Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but _restoring it
+to the right owner_. 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 _has made open war upon him_, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT
+ON in unremitted efforts. Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is
+indebted to his master, and _bound to serve him_? 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."
+
+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, _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_."
+
+In 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its
+"Scripture proofs," notes, comments, &c. Among these was the following:
+
+
+    "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 _sinners
+    of the first rank_. The word he uses, in its original import
+    comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human
+    race into slavery, or in _retaining_ them in it. _Stealers of
+    men_ are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and _keep_,
+    sell, or buy them."
+
+
+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."
+
+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 _an equal
+standing, in point of privileges, with the whites_! They must enjoy all
+the rights belonging to human nature."
+
+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 _will be effected_ in time; it ought to
+be a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not
+_precipitate_ it to the great injury of the southern States." Mr.
+Hartley, of Pennsylvania said, in the sane debate, "_He was not a little
+surprised to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house._"
+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 _nothing is more
+certain_ than that they _must have_, 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 "_The progress of
+emancipation was astonishing_, the State became crowded with a free
+black population."
+
+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, _no master in the state has a
+right to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour_. 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."
+
+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 _is not far distant_
+when our sister states, in imitation of our example, _shall turn their
+vassals into freemen._" 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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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, _a provision had not been made for the gradual abolition of
+slavery_."--p. 233, 4.
+
+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, _to embrace
+the first moment_ 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?"
+
+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, _a plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves of this
+commonwealth_."
+
+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, _and for many years after, the abolition of
+slavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen_, 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, _was for a simple abolition, considering the objection to color
+as founded in prejudice_. By degrees, all projects of the kind were
+abandoned. Mr. Jefferson _retained_ his opinion, and now we have these
+projects revived."
+
+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
+_changed her policy_ in reference to slavery? That the sentiments _of
+our most distinguished men_, for thirty years _entirely corresponded_
+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 _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 _this measure_, (abolition of
+slavery in the N.W. territory) has eventuated in effects which speak a
+monitory lesson. _How is the representation from this quarter on the
+present question?_"
+
+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 _for the bondage of
+others_, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, we
+_contemplate an emancipation of the slaves of this country_, as
+honorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us."
+
+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 _national sentiment_ 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 _part_ 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.
+
+These witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit--nor their
+testimony comments to make it intelligible--their _names_ are their
+_endorsers_ and their strong words their own interpreters. We wave all
+comments. Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to _hear_, 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."
+
+Some of the points established by the testimony are--The universal
+expectation that the _moral_ 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 _approval_ with all parties, and when
+finally passed, received the vote _of every member of Congress from each
+of the slaveholding states_. The south also had every reason for
+believing that the first Congress under the constitution would _ratify_
+that ordinance--as it _did_ unanimously.
+
+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 _with their_ 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, _rights_ no longer--free speech
+struck dumb--free _men_ 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!
+
+The spirit and power of our fathers, where are they? Their deep homage
+always and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with its _inseparable
+signs--free speech and a free press_--their reverence for justice,
+liberty, _rights_ and all-pervading law, where are they?
+
+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.
+
+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 _not_.
+If they _were_, 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" _also_, and of course a
+_constitutional_ act; but if the legislative acts "depriving" them of
+"liberty" were _not_ "due process of law," then the slaves were deprived
+of liberty _unconstitutionally_, and these acts are _void_. In that case
+the _constitution emancipates them_.
+
+If the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase "due
+process of law," is _judicial_ process solely, it is granted, and that
+fact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District _has_ 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 _unconstitutionally_,
+and is therefore _free by the constitution_. This is asserted only of
+the slaves under the "exclusive legislation" of Congress.
+
+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 _this_, provided it will do something _else_, that is,
+_pay_ for them. Thus, instead of denying _the power_, the objector not
+only admits, but _affirms_ it, as the ground of the inference that
+compensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence of
+_one_ power, the objector asserts the existence of _two_--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.
+
+If Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private
+property, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally,
+_legalize_ the perpetration of such acts, by _others_, nor _protect_
+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
+_product_ than the producer?--to the _interest_, than the owner of the
+_principal_?--to the hands and arms, than he from whose shoulders they
+swing?--to the body and soul, than he whose they _are_? Congress not
+only impairs but annihilates the right of private property, while it
+withholds from the slaves of the District their title to _themselves_.
+What! Congress powerless to protect a man's right to _himself_, when it
+can make inviolable the right to a _dog_? 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 "_take_?" Nothing. What would it _hold_? Nothing. What
+would it put to "public use?" Nothing. Instead of _taking_ "private
+property," Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say "private property
+shall not _be_ 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 _paramount_, he shall be protected in it." True, Congress
+may not arbitrarily take property, _as_ 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 _condition_ of the slave--makes him his own
+_proprietor_ instead of the property of another. It determines a
+question of _original right_ 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.
+
+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 _intent_. The _design_ of the provision,
+was to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right
+to "take property" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to
+adjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his
+own secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of
+legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the
+District, it would be _adopting_, 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 _condition_ 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.
+
+Finally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of
+"_property_." The constitution of the United States does not recognise
+slaves as "PROPERTY" any where, and it does not recognise them in _any
+sense_ in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in the
+constitution recognise them as "persons." Every reference to them points
+_solely_ to the element of _personality_; and thus, by the strongest
+implication, declares that the constitution _knows_ them only as
+"persons," and _will_ 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
+_personality_--a refusal to recognise them as chattels--"persons _held_
+to service." Are _oxen "held_ to service?" That can be affirmed only of
+_persons_. 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 recognized as "persons" by the exaction of their _allegiance_
+to the government. For offences against the government slaves are tried
+as _persons_; as persons they are entitled to counsel for their defence,
+to the rules of evidence, and to "due process of the law," and as
+_persons_ 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
+_persons_. 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 _property_ 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 _personality_. In the invariable
+recognition of slaves as _persons_, 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 _human_ 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 _men_, that they might be shorn both of liberty and
+humanity.
+
+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 _does not consider
+these persons_, (slaves,) _as a species of property_."--[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 _state_ laws, or from the law 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, _can be held as a
+slave_.
+
+Men can hold _property_ 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 _slaves_ 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," _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_.
+
+Finally, in the clause under consideration, "private property" is not to
+be taken "without _just_ compensation." "JUST!" If justice is to be
+appealed to in determining the amount of compensation, let her determine
+the _grounds_ also. If it be her province to say _how much_ compensation
+is "just," it is hers to say whether _any_ is "just,"--whether the slave
+is "just" property _at all_, rather than a "_person_." Then, if justice
+adjudges the slave to be "private property," it adjudges him to be _his
+own_ property, since the right to one's _self_ 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 _equivalent_ for one's
+self--the least that can be done is to restore to him his original
+private property.
+
+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 _setting up_ of such a claim.
+
+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 _absolute_ 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 _is in every sense absolute_.
+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.
+
+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 _no power_ to do that for which it was made the
+_depository of power_? CANNOT the United States Government fulfil the
+purpose _for which it was brought into being_?
+
+To abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; but
+to "_establish justice_" between two parties. To emancipate the slave,
+is to "_establish justice_" between him and his master--to throw around
+the person, character, conscience, liberty, and domestic relations of
+the one, _the same law_ that secures and blesses the other. In other
+words, to prevent by _legal restraints_ 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
+_enact_ that innocence and helplessness--now _free plunder_--are
+entitled to _legal protection_; and that power, avarice, and lust, shall
+no longer gorge upon their spoils under the license, and by the
+ministrations of _law_! Congress, by possessing "exclusive legislation
+in all cases whatsoever," has a _general protective power_ for ALL the
+inhabitants of the District. If it has no power to protect _one_ man, it
+has none to protect another--none to protect _any_--and if it _can_
+protect _one_ man and is _bound_ to protect him, it _can_ protect
+_every_ man--all men--and is _bound_ 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
+"_case_" 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 _one_
+class against the other, it gives power to protect _either_ 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 _general_ power in
+the clause so often cited, and an _express_ one in that cited
+above--"Congress shall have power, to suppress insurrections." So much
+for a _supposed_ case. Here follows a _real_ one. The whites in the
+District are _perpetrating these identical acts_ 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 _all_ cases
+whatsoever." For the grant of power to suppress insurrections, is an
+_unconditional_ 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 _actual_ insurrection, from the same
+source whence it derived its power to suppress the _same_ acts in the
+case _supposed_. If one case is an insurrection, the other is. The
+_acts_ in both are the same; the _actors_ 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
+_rights_, 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 _whole lives_ 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 _at all_, it
+has power to suppress them _in_ all.
+
+It has been shown already that _allegiance_ is exacted of the slave. Is
+the government of the United States unable to grant _protection_ where
+it exacts _allegiance_? 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? _Protection is the_ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT _of every human
+being under the exclusive legislation of Congress who has not forfeited
+it by crime_.
+
+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
+_not entitled to compensation_. 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 _property and persons_, it surely might stop half-way, destroy
+them as _property_ while it legalized their existence as _persons_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _as_ property when public safety requires it,
+especially if it transform into a _protection_ and _defence_ that which
+as _property_ 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 _seven thousand slaves_. 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, _transforms them
+into enemies_;" and Richard Henry Lee, in the Va. House of Burgesses in
+1758, declared that to those who held them, "_slaves must be natural
+enemies._" Is Congress so _impotent_ that it _cannot_ 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 _necessity_ 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 _cannot_ arrest the process that _made_ them
+"enemies," and still goads to deadlier hate by fiery trials, and day by
+day adds others to their number? Is _this_ 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.
+
+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 _friends_ 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 _they_ 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.
+
+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 _weaken_ them, and renders
+them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign
+nations, they will be the means of _inviting_ 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 _internal_ as
+external. _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._" See Cong. Reg. vol. 1, p. 310-11.
+
+
+WYTHE.
+
+
+
+POSTSCRIPT
+
+My apology for adding a _postscript_, 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 _any_ 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 _true
+touchstones_, 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 _no_-faced
+_non-committalism_, 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,--_Remember the Missouri Question, and the fate of those who then
+sold the North, and their own birthright!_
+
+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.
+
+"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."
+
+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 _professedly_ 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.
+
+The passage of this resolution--with the vote of every southern senator,
+forms a new era in the discussion of this question.
+
+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 _true_ ground--that finally when the question was
+taken, every slaveholding senator, including Mr. Calhoun himself, voted
+for the resolution.
+
+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.
+
+The _only_ 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 "_as it still continues in both of them_, it
+could not be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was
+implied in the cession," &c. The _sole argument_ is _not_ that exclusive
+_sovereignty_ has no power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction,
+_nor_ that the powers of even _ordinary legislation_ 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
+_unexpressed expectation_ of one of the parties that the other would not
+"in _all_ cases" use the power which said party had consented _might be
+used "in all cases," prohibits_ the use of it. The only cardinal point
+in the discussion, is here not only _yielded_, 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 _sole
+reason_ 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 "_slavery still continues in those states_,"--thus explicitly
+admitting, that if slavery did _not_ "still continue" in those States,
+Congress _could_ abolish it in the District. The same admission is made
+also in the _premises_, which state that slavery existed in those states
+_at the time of the cession_, &c. Admitting that if it had _not_ existed
+there then, but had grown up in the District under _United States'
+laws_, Congress might constitutionally abolish it. Or that if the ceded
+parts of those states had been the _only_ 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 _requires_ Congress in such
+case to abolish slavery in the District "by the _good faith implied_ 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
+_they_ might think would unfavorably bear upon their interests;
+_themselves_ of course being the judges.
+
+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 _expressed_ in the acts of
+cession--that in their _terms_ 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 _intent_. 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 _act_ 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 _on itself alone!_ Mr. Clay and the other
+senators who voted for the resolution, _guess_ that Maryland and
+Virginia _supposed_ that Congress would by no means _use_ 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
+_assumed expectation_ 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!
+
+But let us survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia
+leave so much to be "_implied_?" 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
+_making known_ their wishes? If, as honorable senators tell us, Maryland
+and Virginia did verily travail with such abounding _faith_, why brought
+they forth no _works_?
+
+It is as true in _legislation_ as in religion, that the only _evidence_
+of "faith" is _works_, and that "faith" _without_ works is _dead_, i.e.
+has no power. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing
+_expressed_, an "implied" _faith_ without works, is _omnipotent_. Mr.
+Clay is lawyer enough to know that even a _senatorial hypothesis_ as to
+_what must have been the understanding_ of Maryland and Virginia about
+congressional exercise of constitutional power, _abrogates no grant_,
+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
+_before their eyes_, and that both of them declared those acts made "in
+_pursuance_" of said clause. Those states were aware that the United
+States in their constitution had left nothing to be "_implied_" 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 _stipulations_. Full well did they know
+also that these were times when, in matters of high import, _nothing_
+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 _acts of
+cession_. The severities of a long and terrible discipline had taught
+them to guard at all points _legislative grants_, that their exact
+import and limit might be self-evident--leaving no scope for a blind
+"faith," that _somehow_ 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 _just enough_ 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."
+
+Further: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their "implied
+faith" in _words_, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a
+proviso, declaring that Congress should not "exercise exclusive
+legislation in _all_ cases whatsoever over the District," but that the
+"case" of _slavery_ 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 _not remote_;"
+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 _tolerated_, though she then contained
+about half the slaves in the Union. Was this the time to stipulate for
+the _perpetuity_ of slavery under the exclusive legislation of Congress?
+and that too at the _same_ session of Congress when _every one_ 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?
+
+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 _speedily_ abolished--are we to be told that these
+states _designed_ to bind Congress _never_ to terminate it? Are we to
+adopt the monstrous conclusion that this was the _intent_ of the Ancient
+Dominion--thus to _bind_ the United States by an "implied faith," and
+that when the United States _accepted_ the cession, she did solemnly
+thus plight her troth, and that Virginia did then so _understand_ it?
+Verily one would think that honorable senators supposed themselves
+deputed to do our _thinking_ as well as our legislation, or rather, that
+they themselves were absolved from such drudgery by virtue of their
+office!
+
+Another absurdity of this dogma about "implied faith" is, that where
+there was no power to exact an _express_ pledge, there was none to
+demand an _implied_ one, and where there was no power to _give_ the one,
+there was none to give the _other_. 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 _breach_ of the Constitution. Further, the Congress which accepted the
+cession was competent to pass a resolution pledging itself not to _use
+all_ the power over the District committed to it by the Constitution.
+But here its power ended. Its resolution would only bind _itself_. Could
+it bind the _next_ 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 _shall_ 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 _themselves_ never to abolish slavery
+within their own territories--the ceded parts included. Where then would
+they get power to bind _another_ 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?
+
+But perhaps we shall be told, that the "implied faith" in the acts of
+cession of Maryland and Virginia was _not_ that Congress should _never_
+abolish slavery in the District, but that it should not do it until
+_they_ 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 _not_
+abolish until _they_ do; and then just as "good faith" that Congress
+_will_ abolish _when_ they do! Excellently accommodated! Did those
+States suppose that Congress would legislate over the national domain,
+the common jurisdiction of _all_, for Maryland and Virginia alone? And
+who, did they suppose, would be judges in the matter?--themselves
+merely? or the whole Union?
+
+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
+"_instructions_" from head quarters--instructions not to be disregarded
+without a violation of that, "good faith implied in the cession," &c.
+
+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 _sounding boards_ called "Senate
+Chamber" and "Representatives' Hall," for the purpose of sending abroad
+"by authority" _national echoes_ of _state_ legislation!--permitted also
+to keep in their pay a corps of pliant _national_ musicians, with
+peremptory instructions to sound on any line of the staff according as
+Virginia and Maryland may give the _sovereign_ key note!
+
+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 _principle_
+pervading both. They proceed virtually upon the hypothesis that the will
+and pleasure of Virginia and Maryland are _paramount_ to those of the
+_Union_. 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 _agent_ to consummate the object, there could
+hardly have been higher assumption or louder vaunting. The sole object
+of _having_ 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 _object_ of a federal district,
+that it was designed to guard and promote the interests of _all_ the
+states, and that it was to be legislated over _for this end_--the
+resolution proceeds upon an hypothesis _totally the reverse_. It takes a
+single point of _state_ policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL interests,
+utterly overshadowing them; abrogating national _rights_; making void a
+clause of the Constitution; humbling the general government into a
+subject--crouching for favors to a superior, and that too _on its own
+exclusive jurisdiction_. All the attributes of sovereignty vested in
+Congress by the Constitution it impales upon the point of an alleged
+_implication_. 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 _its own territory_ 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 _their own benefit_, not for
+that of the District, except as the prosperity of the District is
+involved, and necessary to the _general advantage_."--[Life of Pinkney,
+p.  612.]
+
+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
+_States_ and the _people_," (not of _two_ states, and a mere _fraction_
+of the people.) 2d, "Over a District placed under _their_ control," i.e.
+under the control of the _whole_ of the States, not under the control of
+_two twenty-sixths_ of them. 3d, That it was thus put under their
+control "_for_ THEIR OWN _benefit_," the benefit of _all_ the States
+_equally_; not to secure special benefits to Maryland and Virginia, (or
+what it might be _conjectured_ 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 _District_,"
+except as that is _connected_ with, and _a means of promoting_ the
+_general_ advantage. If this is the case with the _District_, which is
+_directly_ concerned, it is pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia,
+who are but _indirectly_ 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 "_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_." Cong.
+Reg. vol. 1. p. 310, 11.
+
+But these are only the initiatory absurdities of this "good faith
+_implied_." 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
+_equally_ a violation for Congress to do it _with the consent_, 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 _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'_, &c.
+
+But let us see where this principle of the _thirty-six_ will lead us. If
+"implied faith" to Maryland and Virginia _restrains_ Congress from the
+abolition of slavery in the District, it _requires_ Congress to do in
+the District what those states have done within their bounds, i.e.,
+restrain _others_ from abolishing it. Upon the same principle Congress
+is _bound_, by the doctrine of Mr. Clay's resolution, to _prohibit
+emancipation_ within the District. There is no _stopping place_ for this
+plighted "faith." Congress must not only refrain from laying violent
+hands on slavery, _itself_, 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!
+
+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 _as_ it exists in those
+states. If to abolish _every_ form of slavery in the District would
+violate good faith, to abolish _the_ 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 _slavery_, but
+with the _Maryland and Virginia systems_ of slavery. The faith of those
+states not being in the preservation of _a_ system, but of _their_
+system; otherwise Congress, instead of _sustaining_, 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 _real
+estate_, 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 _until_
+Virginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any _part_ of it that
+exists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any _form_ or _appendage_ of
+it still existing in those states. 4th. _To abolish_ when they do. 5th.
+To increase or abate its rigor _when, how_, and _as_ 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.
+
+But here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states should
+steer different courses--then there would be _two_ wakes! Can Congress
+float in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! Its
+obsequiousness equals its "power of legislation in _all_ cases
+whatsoever." It can float _up_ 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 _at once_, 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 _man_ can serve two
+masters--but if "corporations have _no_ souls," analogy would absolve
+Congress on that score, or at most give it only _a very small soul_--not
+large enough to be at all in the way, as an _exception_ to the universal
+rule laid down to the maxim!
+
+In following out the absurdities of this "_implied_ good faith," it will
+be seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to
+_all the subjects_ of _legislation_ 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 _immorality_, 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,
+_unless Virginia and Maryland took the lead_, would violate the "good
+faith implied in the cession," &c.
+
+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 _possessions_ and _titles_
+confirmed to them, and be _protected_ in the enjoyment of their _rights_
+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 _held
+slaves_. Three years after the cession, the Virginia delegation in
+Congress _proposed_ 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?
+
+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
+_first_ 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.
+
+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!
+
+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 _intent_, 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!
+
+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, _will not_, 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.
+
+Have the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the
+lessons of experience? If lost to _reason_, are they dead to _instinct_
+also? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self preservation? And
+shall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal sacrifice?
+
+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.
+
+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 _amended_ form. It will
+be seen however, that it underwent no material modification.
+
+"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."
+
+The vote upon the Resolution stood as follows:
+
+_Yeas_.--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.
+
+_Nays_.--Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, PRENTISS, RUGGLES,
+SMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE
+
+
+ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER
+
+No. 5
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+THE
+
+
+POWER OF CONGRESS
+
+
+OVER THE
+
+
+DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, UNDER THE SIGNATURE
+OF "WYTHE."
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+WITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+NEW-YORK:
+
+PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY
+
+NO. 143 NASSAU-STREET.
+
+1838.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+This periodical contains 3-1/2 sheets--Postage under 100 miles, 6 cts.,
+over 100, 10 cts.
+
+
+
+POWER OF CONGRESS
+
+OVER THE
+
+DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
+
+A civilized community presupposes a government of law. If that
+government be a republic, its citizens are the sole _sources_, as well
+as the _subjects_ 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, _in all cases whatsoever_, over
+such District." Congress may make laws for the District "in all
+_cases_," not of all _kinds_; not all _laws_ whatsoever, but laws "in
+all _cases_ whatsoever." The grant respects the _subjects_ of
+legislation, _not_ the moral nature of the laws. The law-making power
+every where is subject to _moral_ 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.
+
+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 _any where_. The exact
+import, therefore, of the clause "in all cases whatsoever," is, _on all
+subjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation_. 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.
+
+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 _single_ case only, why did they
+provide for "_all_ cases whatsoever?" Besides, this clause was opposed
+in many of the state conventions, because the grant of power was not
+restricted to police regulations _alone_. 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 _police_ 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
+_unlimited, unbounded authority?_" 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 _generally_, 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. [_Deb. Va. Con._, p. 320.]
+In the forty-third number of the "Federalist," Mr. Madison says: "The
+indispensable necessity of _complete_ authority at the seat of
+government, carries its own evidence with it."
+
+Finally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to
+the obvious import of its _terms_, 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 _police and good government_ of said District,"
+_which amendment was rejected._
+
+The former part of the clause under consideration, "Congress shall have
+power to exercise _exclusive_ legislation," gives _sole_ jurisdiction,
+and the latter part, "in all cases whatsoever," defines the _extent_ of
+it. Since, then, Congress is the _sole_ 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 _any_ where, Congress is competent to do in the District
+of Columbia. Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to state and
+argue the _real question_ at issue.
+
+
+
+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?
+
+In every government, absolute sovereignty exists _somewhere_. In the
+United States it exists primarily with the _people_, and _ultimate_
+sovereignty _always_ exists with them. In each of the States, the
+legislature possesses a _representative_ 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
+_people_ 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
+_the people_ 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 _the people_, clothed with all their functions, and as such
+competent, _during the continuance of the grant_, 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 _somewhere_--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."
+
+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
+_sovereignty_ 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 _it alone_. Maryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution
+_before_ 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,
+
+2. FROM THE FACT, THAT SLAVERY, AS A LEGAL SYSTEM, IS THE CREATURE OF
+LEGISLATION. The law, by _creating_ slavery, not only affirmed its
+_existence_ to be within the sphere and under the control of
+legislation, but equally, the _conditions_ and _terms_ of its existence,
+and the _question_ whether or not it _should_ exist. Of course
+legislation would not travel _out_ of its sphere, in abolishing what is
+_within_ 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 _yourself_." 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?
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+The law of North Carolina prohibits the "immoderate" correction of
+slaves. If it has power to prohibit immoderate correction, it can
+prohibit _moderate_ correction--_all_ 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.
+
+The Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power to make
+laws "to oblige the owners of slaves to _treat them with humanity_." 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 _humane_ treatment of the slaves. This grant to
+those legislatures, empowers them to decide what _is_ and what is _not_
+"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 _particulars_
+of such treatment--gives power to exact it in _all respects--requiring_
+certain acts, and _prohibiting_ 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 "_humane_ 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 _oblige_" masters to practise "humane treatment"--they have
+the power to _prohibit such_ treatment, and are bound to do it.
+
+The law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the holder,
+if he be also a _land_ holder, to separate them from the soil.[A] If it
+has power to prohibit the sale _without_ the soil, it can prohibit the
+sale _with_ it; and if it can prohibit the _sale_ as property, it can
+prohibit the _holding_ as property. Similar laws exist in the French,
+Spanish, and Portuguese colonies.
+
+[Footnote A: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law passed in 1705.
+(_Beverly's Hist. of Va_., 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.]
+
+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 _one_ thing, it can oblige him to give him another: if food and
+clothing, then wages, liberty, his own body.
+
+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, ["_Reeve's Law of
+Baron and Femme_," p. 340-1.] Each of the laws enumerated above, does,
+_in principle_, abolish slavery; and all of them together abolish it in
+fact. True, not as a _whole_, and at a _stroke_, nor all in one place;
+but in its _parts_, by piecemeal, at divers times and places; thus
+showing that the abolition of slavery is within the boundary of
+legislation.
+
+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 _Constitutions_, 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 _cannot_ 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 _never had_, and what _cannot_ pertain to it! The legislatures
+of those States have no power to abolish slavery, simply because their
+Constitutions have expressly _taken away_ 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 _restrict_ it.
+
+The slaveholding States have recognised this power in their _laws_. 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 _free_." By a law of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792,
+a slave brought into the state and kept _there a year_, was _free_. The
+Maryland Court of Appeals at the December term 1813 [case of Stewart
+_vs._ 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 _free_, being _emancipated_ 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 _with the exception of the sixth article which prohibits
+slavery_; 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.)
+
+Slaveholding states have asserted this power _in their judicial
+decisions_. 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 _vs._ Coquillon, 14 Martin's La.
+Reps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter
+_vs._ 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 _vs._ Hopper, Washington's Circuit Court Reps. 508. This
+principle was also decided by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky; case of
+Rankin _vs._ Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407; see also, Wilson _vs._
+Isbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts _vs._ Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps.
+566. The State _vs._ Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise
+_vs._ 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.
+
+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 _legislative_ 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 _legislative_
+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 _law_." In a letter to Sir
+John Sinclair, he says: "There are in Pennsylvania, _laws_ for the
+gradual abolition of slavery, which neither Maryland nor Virginia have
+at present, but which nothing is more certain than that they _must
+have_, 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 _it must bear and adopt it_."--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 _name_ is his biography.
+
+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 _abolished_ 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
+_abolish_ 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 _law_.
+
+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."
+
+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
+_extermination_ from amongst us of slavery, is a work worthy the
+representatives of a polished and enlightened nation."
+
+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.
+
+
+    "The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on
+    the subject of Abolition, was in these words: _Resolved_, 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 _was_ expedient, _now_ 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 _negatived_, 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."
+
+
+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.
+
+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
+_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 _abridge_
+the powers which Congress possessed under the articles of confederation?
+
+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 _technic_, in common
+parlance, that the fact of its being _proper slavery_ is overlooked. The
+buying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of the middle
+passage, were mere _incidents_ 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 _all_ the slavery within its
+jurisdiction, but it did abolish all the slavery in _one_ part of its
+jurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to abolish slavery in
+_another_ part of its jurisdiction, especially in that part where it has
+"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?"
+
+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 _unconditionally_, 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 _laws_ of the free states. If these
+laws had _no power_ to emancipate, why this constitutional guard to
+prevent it?
+
+The insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists
+that framed the Constitution, to the existence of the _power_, 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 _universal law_,
+and is recognised and protected by all civilized nations; property in
+slaves is, by general consent, an _exception_; hence slaveholders
+insisted upon the insertion of this clause in the United States
+Constitution, that they might secure by an _express provision_, that
+from which protection is withheld, by the acknowledged principles of
+universal law.[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 "_persons_, and _held_ to service."
+
+[Footnote 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 _now_ 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 "_for one moment_," under the laws
+of France emancipated an American slave--the case of Fulton _vs._.
+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 "_property_," and that
+whenever held as property under _law_, it is only by _positive
+legislative acts_, 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.]
+
+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 _statute_ 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 _things_, as contra-distinguished
+from _persons_." 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 _fundamental_
+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 _devotion to_ 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 "_justice_"
+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.
+
+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
+_principles themselves_, 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 _vs._
+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." [_Hall's
+Law Journal, new series._] Mr. Duponceau, in his "Dissertation on the
+Jurisdiction of Courts in the United States," says, "I consider the
+common law of England the _jus commune_ 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 _vs._
+Reed, in 1823, Hawkes' N.C. Reps. 454, says, "a law of _paramount
+obligation to the statute_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+We argue it further, from the fact, that slavery exists there _now_ 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.
+
+Is Congress so impotent in its own "exclusive jurisdiction" that it
+_cannot_ "otherwise by law provide?" If it can say, what _shall_ be
+considered property, it can say what shall _not_ 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 _bona
+fide_ 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?
+
+
+
+II. THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN,
+TILL RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED.
+
+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 _inexpediency_ alone. In the debate which preceded the
+vote, the _power_ 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
+_putting a stop to the same_."
+
+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
+_expediency_ of providing by _law_ 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.
+
+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, (_slavery_,) as upon all other subjects of
+legislation, to exercise _unlimited discretion_." 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
+_unconstitutional_ 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."
+
+"Resolved, That Congress _ought not to interfere_ 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."
+
+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.
+
+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 _legislative_ 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 _excluding them when free_. Journal H.R.
+1828-9, p. 174.
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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 _implied_ 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
+_implication_. 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.
+Here is a full concession of the _power_. 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."
+
+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 _as it is_. 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.
+
+The Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the _general_
+power of Congress over the subject of slavery, do virtually assert its
+_special_ power within its _exclusive_ jurisdiction.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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" _District_. 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 _here_? Within the ten miles square, you
+have _undoubted power_ to exercise exclusive legislation. _Produce a
+bill to emancipate the slaves in the District of Columbia_, or, if you
+prefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter."
+
+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?"
+
+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] 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
+_special_ and _comprehensive_ legislation which these circumstances
+peculiarly demanded."
+
+[Footnote 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 _every constitutional barrier should be
+interposed to prevent its further extension_: and that the constitution
+of the United States _clearly gives congress the right_ to require new
+states, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States,
+to _make the prohibition of slavery_ a condition of their admission into
+the Union: Therefore,
+
+"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 _the prohibition of
+slavery_ therein an indispensable condition of admission." ]
+
+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.
+
+An explicit declaration, that an "_overwhelming majority_" of the
+_present_ 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:
+
+
+    "The time has arrived when we must have new guaranties under the
+    constitution, or the Union must be dissolved. _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_, NOT WITHOUT STRONG
+    REASONS, _that the power of Congress extends to all of these
+    subjects_."
+
+
+_Direct testimony_ to show that the power of Congress to abolish slavery
+in the District, has always till recently been _universally conceded_,
+is perhaps quite superfluous. We subjoin, however, the following:
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+
+
+OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+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 _accept_ 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.
+
+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."
+
+"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.
+
+The cession of Virginia was made on the 3d of December, 1788, in the
+following words:
+
+"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."
+
+But were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act had _none_.
+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
+_therein_, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such
+individuals to the United States."
+
+This specification touching the soil was merely definitive and
+explanatory of that clause in the act of cession, "_full and absolute
+right_." Instead of restraining the power of Congress on _slavery_ and
+other subjects, it even gives it freer course; for exceptions to _parts_
+of a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the
+exceptions. If it was the _design_ of the proviso to restrict
+congressional action on the subject of _slavery_, why is the _soil
+alone_ 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 _meant_, though nothing was _said_ about it?
+
+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 _restricting_ that clause, both States
+_confirm_ it. Now, their acts of cession either accorded with that
+clause of the constitution, or they conflicted with it. If they
+conflicted with it, _accepting_ the cessions was a violation of the
+constitution. The fact that Congress accepted the cessions, proves that
+in its view their _terms_ 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!
+
+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.
+
+This comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They _knew_ 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 _adopted_ the constitution. And _afterward_, 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
+_supposed_!" &c. Cede it they _did_, 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, _the amount of power over the
+District, lodged in Congress by the constitution_. 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 _not_--and that point is to be settled, not
+by state "suppositions," nor state usages, nor state legislation, but
+_by the terms of the clause themselves_.
+
+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 _declaimers_ 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
+_sovereignty_ mere creatures of _contingency_? Is delegated _authority_
+mere conditional _permission_? Is a _constitutional power_ to be
+exercised by those who hold it, only by popular _sufferance?_ 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
+_whole_ people must be had--not that of a majority, however large.
+Majorities, to be authoritative, must be _legal_--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 _every one_ is necessary--and _universal_
+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 _to use_ a power which
+it _has not_? "It is required of a man according to what he _hath_,"
+saith the Scripture. I commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would
+that he had got his _logic_ 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, _asking_ Congress to do what it _cannot_ do,
+gives it the power--to pray the exercise of a power that is _not,
+creates_ it. A beautiful theory! Let us work it both ways. If to
+petition for the exercise of a power that is _not_, creates it--to
+petition against the exercise of a power that _is_, 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 _right_ to abolish slavery, they impose
+the _duty_; if they confer constitutional _authority_, they create
+constitutional _obligation_. If Congress _may_ abolish because of an
+expression of their will, it _must_ abolish at the bidding of that will.
+If the people of the District are a _source of power_ to Congress, their
+_expressed_ 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 _subject_ 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.
+
+"_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 _withheld_ 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 _guessing_
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?"
+
+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
+_when slavery should cease_, 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.)
+
+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 _general belief_ 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.
+
+The first _general_ 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.
+
+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. _Anthony Benezet stood alone a few years ago
+in opposing negro slavery in Philadelphia_, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS OF THE
+PROVINCE AS WELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST IT."--[Stuart's Life of
+Sharpe, p. 21.]
+
+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, _should be willing to extend personal
+liberty to others_, therefore," &c.
+
+October 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: "We,
+for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we
+represent, _firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue,
+honor, and love of our country_, as follows:
+
+"2d Article. We _will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported_
+after the first day of December next, after which time we will _wholly
+discontinue_ 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."
+
+The Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and the
+necessity for taking up arms, say: "_If it were possible_ for men who
+exercise their reason to believe that the divine Author of our existence
+intended a part of the human race to _hold an absolute property in, and
+unbounded power over others_," &c.
+
+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 _increasing_, and _greatly spreading of late_, and _many_ who have
+had slaves, have found themselves so unable to justify their own conduct
+in holding them in bondage, as to be induced to _set them at liberty_. *
+*     *     *     Slavery is, _in every instance_, wrong, unrighteous,
+and oppressive--a very great and crying sin--_there being nothing of the
+kind equal to it on the face of the earth._"
+
+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." _Once_, these were words
+of power; _now_, "a rhetorical flourish."
+
+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."
+
+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, _that men are by nature free_; and so long as
+we have any idea of divine _justice_, we must associate that of _human
+freedom_. It is _conceded on all hands, that the right to be free_ CAN
+NEVER BE ALIENATED."
+
+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.
+
+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, _the way I hope preparing under the auspices of heaven_, FOR
+A TOTAL EMANCIPATION."
+
+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, _the bulk of the people will approve of your pamphlet in
+theory_, and it will find a respectable minority ready to _adopt it in
+practice_--a minority which, for weight and worth of character,
+_preponderates against the greater number_." 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 _great deal of good_; 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 _whose
+sentiments on the subject of slavery are unequivocal._ 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 _its influence on the
+future decision of this important question would be great, perhaps
+decisive._ Thus, you see, that so far from thinking you have cause to
+repent of what you have done, _I wish you to do more, and wish it on an
+assurance of its effect._"--Jefferson's Posthumous Works, vol. 1, p.
+268.
+
+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.
+
+In the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated a slave
+in 1784, is the following passage:
+
+"Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and cannot,
+without injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery."
+
+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 _ought to do it._"
+
+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:
+
+
+    "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
+    _lately_ established, it has now become _generally extensive_
+    through this state, and, we fully believe, _embraces, on this
+    subject, the sentiments of a large majority of its citizens._"
+
+
+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 _Virginia Society_,
+for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, &c." The following is an
+extract:
+
+
+    "Your memorialists, fully believing that slavery is not only an
+    odious degradation, but an _outrageous violation of one of the
+    most essential rights of human nature, and utterly repugnant to
+    the precepts of the gospel_, 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."
+
+
+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:
+
+
+    "It is our boast, that we live under a government wherein
+    _life_, _liberty_, and the _pursuit of happiness_, 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 _abhor that inconsistent,
+    illiberal, and interested policy, which withholds those rights
+    from an unfortunate and degraded class of our fellow
+    creatures._"
+
+
+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.
+
+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 _more than forty days had been spent in
+adjusting the question of slavery, gave it his approval._ The act passed
+with only one dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of New York,) _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_.
+
+In the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, afterward
+a Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, "_When the entire
+abolition of slavery takes place_, 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 bring forward
+manumission_." 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 _the gradual abolition of slavery_, and the
+_emancipation of the slaves_ 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 _banishing slavery out of this country_. 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 _slaves will never be introduced_ among them. It
+presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will
+be acknowledged and established _throughout the Union_. Yet the lapse of
+a few years, and Congress will have power to _exterminate slavery_
+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 _diabolical_ 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, _unless they agree to a discontinuance of this
+disgraceful trade_." 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 _has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it
+will come round_."--[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 _detested_. 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
+_it has received a mortal wound_, and will die of consumption."--[Deb.
+Mass. Con. p. 60.] General Heath said that, "Slavery was confined to the
+States _now existing_, it _could not be extended_. By their ordinance,
+Congress had declared that the new States should be republican States,
+_and have no slavery_."--p. 147.
+
+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 _so considerable a part_ of the community
+attending to matters of such a momentous concern to the _future
+prosperity_ and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty,
+as a citizen of the Union, _to espouse their cause_."
+
+Mr. Page, of Virginia, (afterward Governor)--"Was _in favor_ 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 _not_ 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, _from which
+was expected great good would result to_ EVERY CLASS _of citizens_, 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 _wait the decision patiently_."
+
+Mr. Scott of Pennsylvania: "I cannot, for my part, conceive how any
+person _can be said to acquire a property in another_. Let us argue on
+principles countenanced by reason, and becoming humanity. _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_."
+
+Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, "He _saw the disposition of the
+House_, and he feared it would he referred to a committee, maugre all
+their opposition."
+
+Mr. Smith of South Carolina, said, "That on entering into this
+government, they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that the other
+states,  *     *     _would, from motives of humanity and benevolence,
+be led to vote for a general emancipation_."
+
+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 restore to human nature its inherent privileges_. The inconsistency
+in our principles, with which we are justly charged _should be done
+away_."
+
+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? _When this practice comes to be tried, then the
+sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it grateful to the
+ravished ear_."
+
+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 _give some testimony of the sense of America_, 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, _to vary the practice_ obtaining under some of the
+state governments, it is this. But it is _certain_ a majority of the
+states are _opposed to this practice_."--Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.
+
+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 _slaveholder_, says, "I have seen in the papers accounts of
+_large associations_, and applications to Government for _the abolition
+of slavery_. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free
+people, are the _noble principles which dictate those measures_. SUCH
+MOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW."
+
+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 _free discussion_ 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 _licensed robbers_, and not the just proprietors of what they
+claim. Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but _restoring it
+to the right owner_. 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 _has made open war upon him_, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT
+ON in unremitted efforts. Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is
+indebted to his master, and _bound to serve him_? 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."
+
+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, _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_."
+
+In 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its
+"Scripture proofs," notes, comments, &c. Among these was the following:
+
+
+    "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 _sinners
+    of the first rank_. The word he uses, in its original import
+    comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human
+    race into slavery, or in _retaining_ them in it. _Stealers of
+    men_ are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and _keep_,
+    sell, or buy them."
+
+
+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."
+
+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 _an equal
+standing, in point of privileges, with the whites_! They must enjoy all
+the rights belonging to human nature."
+
+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 _will be effected_ in time; it ought to
+be a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not
+_precipitate_ it to the great injury of the southern States." Mr.
+Hartley, of Pennsylvania, said, in the same debate, "_He was not a
+little surprised to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house._"
+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 _nothing is more
+certain_ than that they _must have_, 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 "_The progress of
+emancipation was astonishing_, the State became crowded with a free
+black population."
+
+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, _no master in the state has a
+right to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour_.... 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."
+
+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 _is not far distant_ when
+our sister states, in imitation of our example, _shall turn their
+vassals into freemen_." 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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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, _a provision had not been made for the gradual abolition of
+slavery_."--p. 233, 4.
+
+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, _to embrace
+the first moment_ 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?"
+
+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, _a plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves of this
+commonwealth_."
+
+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, _and for many years after, the abolition of
+slavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen_, 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, _was for a simple abolition, considering the objection to color
+as founded in prejudice_. By degrees, all projects of the kind were
+abandoned. Mr. Jefferson _retained_ his opinion, and now we have these
+projects revived."
+
+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
+_changed her policy_ in reference to slavery? That the sentiments of
+_our most distinguished men_, for thirty years _entirely corresponded_
+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 _this measure_,
+(abolition of slavery in the N.W. territory) has eventuated in effects
+which speak a monitory lesson. _How is the representation from this
+quarter on the present question?_"
+
+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 _for the bondage of
+others_, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, we
+_contemplate an emancipation of the slaves of this country_, as
+honorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us."
+
+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 _national sentiment_ 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 _part_ 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.
+
+These witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit; nor their
+testimony comments to make it intelligible--their _names_ are their
+_endorsers_ and their strong words their own interpreters. We wave all
+comments. Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to _hear_, 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."
+
+Some of the points established by the testimony are--The universal
+expectation that the _moral_ 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 _approval_ with all parties, and when
+finally passed, received the vote _of every member of Congress from each
+of the slaveholding states_. The south also had every reason for
+believing that the first Congress under the constitution would _ratify_
+that ordinance--as it _did_ unanimously.
+
+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 _with their_ 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, _rights_ no longer--free speech
+struck dumb--free _men_ 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!
+
+The spirit and power of our fathers, where are they? Their deep homage
+always and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with its _inseparable
+signs--free speech and a free press_--their reverence for justice,
+liberty, _rights_ and all-pervading law, where are they?
+
+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.
+
+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 _not_.
+If they _were_, 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" _also_, and of course a
+_constitutional_ act; but if the legislative acts "depriving" them of
+"liberty" were _not_ "due process of law," then the slaves were deprived
+of liberty _unconstitutionally_, and these acts are _void_. In that case
+the _constitution emancipates them_.
+
+If the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase "due
+process of law," is _judicial_ process solely, it is granted, and that
+fact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District _has_ 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 _unconstitutionally_,
+and is therefore _free by the constitution_. This is asserted only of
+the slaves under the "exclusive legislation" of Congress.
+
+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 _this_, provided it will do something _else_, that is,
+_pay_ for them. Thus, instead of denying the _power_, the objector not
+only admits, but _affirms_ it, as the ground of the inference that
+compensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence of
+_one_ power, the objector asserts the existence of _two_--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.
+
+If Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private
+property, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally,
+_legalise_ the perpetration of such acts, by _others_, nor _protect_
+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 _product_
+than the producer?--to the _interest_, than the owner of the
+_principal_?--to the hands and arms, than he from whose shoulders they
+swing?--to the body and soul, than he whose they _are_? Congress not
+only impairs but annihilates the right of private property, while it
+withholds from the slaves of the District their title to _themselves_.
+What! Congress powerless to protect a man's right to _himself_, when it
+can make inviolable the right to a _dog_! 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 "_take_?" Nothing. What would it _hold_? Nothing. What
+would it put to "public use?" Nothing. Instead of _taking_ "private
+property," Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say "_private
+property_ shall not _be_ 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 _paramount_, he shall be protected in it." True,
+Congress may not arbitrarily take property, _as_ 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 _condition_ of the slave--makes him
+his own _proprietor_ instead of the property of another. It determines a
+question of _original right_ 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.
+
+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 _intent_. The _design_ of the provision,
+was to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right
+to "take property" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to
+adjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his
+own secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of
+legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the
+District, it would be _adopting_, 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 _condition_ 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.
+
+Finally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of
+"_property_." The constitution of the United States does not recognise
+slaves as "PROPERTY" any where, and it does not recognise them in _any
+sense_ in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in the
+constitution recognise them as "persons." Every reference to them points
+_solely_ to the element of _personality_; and thus, by the strongest
+implication, declares that the constitution _knows_ them only as
+"persons," and _will_ 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
+_personality_--a refusal to recognise them as chattels--"persons _held_
+to service." Are _oxen_ "_held_ to service?" That can be affirmed only
+of _persons_. 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 _persons_ by the exaction of their _allegiance_
+to the government. For offences against the government slaves are tried
+as _persons_; as persons they are entitled to counsel for their defence,
+to the rules of evidence, and to "due process of law," and as _persons_
+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 _persons_. 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
+_property_ 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 _personality_. In the invariable recognition of
+slaves as _persons_, 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 _human_ 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 _men_, that they might be shorn both of
+liberty and humanity.
+
+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 _does not consider
+these persons,_ (slaves,) _as a species of property._"--[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 _state_ 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, _can be held as a
+slave_.
+
+Men can hold _property_ 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 _slaves_ 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," _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._
+
+Finally, in the clause under consideration, "private property" is not to
+be taken "without _just_ compensation." "JUST!" If justice is to be
+appealed to in determining the amount of compensation, let her determine
+the _grounds_ also. If it be her province to say _how much_ compensation
+is "just," it is hers to say whether _any_ is "just,"--whether the slave
+is "just" property _at all_, rather than a "_person_." Then, if justice
+adjudges the slave to be "private property," it adjudges him to be _his
+own_ property, since the right to one's _self_ 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 _equivalent_ for one's
+self--the least that can be done is to restore to him his original
+private property.
+
+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 _setting up_ of such a claim.
+
+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 _absolute_ 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 _is in every sense absolute_.
+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.
+
+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 _no power_ to do that for which it was made the
+_depository of power_? CANNOT the United States' Government fulfil the
+purpose _for which it was brought into being_?
+
+To abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; but
+to "_establish justice_" between two parties. To emancipate the slave,
+is to "_establish justice_" between him and his master--to throw around
+the person, character, conscience, liberty, and domestic relations of
+the one, _the same law_ that secures and blesses the other. In other
+words, to prevent by _legal restraints_ 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
+_enact_ that innocence and helplessness--now _free plunder_--are
+entitled to _legal protection_; and that power, avarice, and lust, shall
+no longer gorge upon their spoils under the license, and by the
+ministrations of _law_! Congress, by possessing "exclusive legislation
+in all cases whatsoever," has a _general protective power_ for ALL the
+inhabitants of the District. If it has no power to protect _one_ man, it
+has none to protect another--none to protect _any_--and if it _can_
+protect _one_ man and is _bound_ to protect him, it _can_ protect
+_every_ man--all men--and is _bound_ 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
+"_case_" 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 _one_
+class against the other, it gives power to protect _either_ 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 _general_ power in
+the clause so often cited, and an _express_ one in that cited
+above--"Congress shall have power to suppress insurrections." So much
+for a _supposed_ case. Here follows a _real_ one. The whites in the
+District _are perpetrating these identical acts_ 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 _all_ cases
+whatsoever." For the grant of power to suppress insurrections, is an
+_unconditional_ 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 _actual_ insurrection, from the same
+source whence it derived its power to suppress the _same_ acts in the
+case _supposed_. If one case is an insurrection, the other is. The
+_acts_ in both are the same; the _actors_ 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
+_rights_, 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 _whole lives_ 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 _at all_, it
+has power to suppress them _in_ all.
+
+It has been shown already that _allegiance_ is exacted of the slave. Is
+the government of the United States unable to grant _protection_ where
+it exacts _allegiance_? 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? _Protection is the_ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT _of every human
+being under the exclusive legislation of Congress who has not forfeited
+it by crime._
+
+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
+_not entitled to compensation_. 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 _property_ and _persons_, it surely might stop _half-way_,
+destroy them _as property_ while it legalized their existence as
+_persons_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _as_ property when the public safety requires
+it, especially if it transform into a _protection_ and _defence_ that
+which as _property_ 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 _seven thousand slaves_. 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, _transforms
+them into enemies_;" and Richard Henry Lee, in the Va. house of
+Burgesses in 1758, declared that to those who held them, "_slaves must
+be natural enemies_." Is Congress so _impotent_ that it _cannot_
+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 _necessity_ 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 _cannot_ arrest the
+process that _made_ them "enemies," and still goads to deadlier hate by
+fiery trials, and day by day adds others to their number? Is _this_
+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.
+
+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 _friends_ 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
+_they_ 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.
+
+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 _weaken_ them, and renders
+them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign
+nations, they will be the means of _inviting_ 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 _internal_ as
+external. _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._" See Cong. Reg. vol. 1, p. 310, 11.
+
+
+
+POSTSCRIPT
+
+My apology for adding a _postscript_, 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 _any_ 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 _true
+touchstones_, 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 _no_-faced
+_non-committalism_, 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,--_Remember the Missouri Question, and the fate of those who then
+sold the North, and their own birthright_!
+
+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.
+
+
+    "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."
+
+
+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 _professedly_ 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.
+
+The passage of this resolution--with the vote of every southern senator,
+forms a new era in the discussion of this question.
+
+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 _true_ ground--that finally when the question was
+taken, every slaveholding senator, including Mr. Calhoun himself, voted
+for the resolution.
+
+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.
+
+The _only_ 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 "_as it still continues in both of them_, it could
+not be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was
+implied in the cession." &c. The _sole argument_ is _not_ that exclusive
+_sovereignty_ has no power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction,
+_nor_ that the powers of even _ordinary legislation_ 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 _unexpressed expectation_ of one of the parties that the other
+would not "in _all_ cases" _use_ the power which said party had
+consented _might be used_ "_in all cases_," _prohibits_ the use of it.
+The only cardinal point in the discussion, is here not only _yielded_,
+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 _sole reason_ 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 "_slavery still continues in those states_,"--thus
+explicitly admitting, that if slavery did _not_ "still continue" in
+those States, Congress _could_ abolish it in the District. The same
+admission is made also in the _premises_, which state that slavery
+existed in those states _at the time of the cession_, &c. Admitting that
+if it had _not_ existed there then, but had grown up in the District
+under _United States' laws_, Congress might constitutionally abolish it.
+Or that if the ceded parts of those states had been the _only_ 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 _requires_
+Congress in such case to abolish slavery in the District "by the _good
+faith implied_ 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 _they_ might think would unfavorably bear upon their interests;
+_themselves_ of course being the judges.
+
+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 _expressed_ in the acts of
+cession--that in their _terms_ 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 _intent_. 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 _act_ 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 _on itself alone_! Mr. Clay and the other senators who voted for
+the resolution, _guess_ that Maryland and Virginia supposed that
+Congress would by no means _use_ 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 _assumed expectation_ 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!
+
+But let us survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia
+leave so much to be "_implied_?" 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
+_making known_ their wishes? If, as honorable senators tell us, Maryland
+and Virginia did verily travail with such abounding _faith_, why brought
+they forth no _works_?
+
+It is as true in _legislation_ as in religion, that the only _evidence_
+of "faith" is _works_, and that "faith" _without_ works is _dead_, i.e.
+has no _power_. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing
+_expressed_, an "implied" _faith_ without works, is _omnipotent_. Mr.
+Clay is lawyer enough to know that even a _senatorial hypothesis_ as to
+what must have been the _understanding_ of Maryland and Virginia about
+congressional exercise of constitutional power, _abrogates no grant_,
+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
+_before their eyes_, and that both of them declared those acts made "in
+_pursuance_" of said clause. Those states were aware that the United
+States in their constitution had left nothing to be "_implied_" 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 _stipulations_. Full well did they know
+also that those were times when, in matters of high import, _nothing_
+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 _acts of
+cession_. The severities of a long and terrible discipline had taught
+them to guard at all points _legislative grants_, that their exact
+import and limit might be self-evident--leaving no scope for a blind
+"faith," that _somehow_ 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 _just enough_ 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."
+
+Further: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their "implied
+faith" in _words_, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a
+proviso, declaring that Congress should not "exercise exclusive
+legislation in _all_ cases whatsoever over the District," but that the
+"case" of _slavery_ 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 _not remote_;"
+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 _tolerated_, though she then contained
+about half the slaves in the Union. Was this the time to stipulated for
+the _perpetuity_ of slavery under the exclusive legislation of Congress?
+and that too at the _same_ session of Congress when _every one_ 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?
+
+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 _speedily_ abolished--are we to be told that those
+states _designed_ to bind Congress _never_ to terminate it? Are we to
+adopt the monstrous conclusion that this was the intent of the Ancient
+Dominion--thus to _bind_ the United States by an "implied faith," and
+that when the United States _accepted_ the cession, she did solemnly
+thus plight her troth, and that Virginia did then so _understand_ it?
+Verily one would think that honorable senators supposed themselves
+deputed to do our _thinking_ as well as our legislation, or rather, that
+they themselves were absolved from such drudgery by virtue of their
+office!
+
+Another absurdity of this dogma about "implied faith" is, that where
+there was no power to exact an _express_ pledge, there was none to
+demand an _implied_ one, and where there was no power to _give_ the one,
+there was none to give the _other_. 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 _breach_ of the Constitution. Further, the Congress which accepted the
+cession was competent to pass a resolution pledging itself not to _use
+all_ the power over the District committed to it by the Constitution.
+But here its power ended. Its resolution would only bind _itself_. Could
+it bind the _next_ 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 _shall_ 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 _themselves_ never to abolish slavery
+within their own territories--the ceded parts included. Where then would
+they get power to bind _another_ 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?
+
+But perhaps we shall be told, that the "implied faith" in the acts of
+cession of Maryland and Virginia was _not_ that Congress should _never_
+abolish slavery in the District, but that it should not do it until
+_they_ 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 _not_
+abolish until _they_ do; and then just as "good faith" that Congress
+_will_ abolish _when_ they do! Excellently accommodated! Did those
+States suppose that Congress would legislate over the national domain,
+the common jurisdiction of _all_, for Maryland and Virginia alone? And
+who, did they suppose, would be judges in the matter?--themselves
+merely? or the whole Union?
+
+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
+"_instructions_" from head quarters--instructions not to be disregarded
+without a violation of that "good faith implied in the cession," &c.
+
+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 _sounding boards_ called "Senate
+Chamber" and "Representatives' Hall," for the purpose of sending abroad
+"by authority" _national_ echoes of _state_ legislation!--permitted also
+to keep in their pay a corps of pliant _national_ musicians, with
+peremptory instructions to sound on any line of the staff according as
+Virginia and Maryland may give the _sovereign_ key note!
+
+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 _principle_
+pervading both. They proceed virtually upon the hypothesis that the will
+and pleasure of Virginia and Maryland are _paramount_ to those of the
+_Union_. 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 _agent_ to consummate the object, there could
+hardly have been higher assumption or louder vaunting. The sole object
+of _having_ 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 _object_ of a federal district,
+that it was designed to guard and promote the interests of _all_ the
+states, and that it was to be legislated over _for this end_--the
+resolution proceeds upon an hypothesis _totally the reverse_. It takes a
+single point of _state_ policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL interests,
+utterly overshadowing them; abrogating national _rights_; making void a
+clause of the Constitution; humbling the general government into a
+subject--crouching for favors to a superior, and that too _on its own
+exclusive jurisdiction_. All the attributes of sovereignty vested in
+Congress by the Constitution it impales upon the point of an alleged
+_implication_. 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 _its own territory_ 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 _their own benefit_, not for
+that of the District, except as the prosperity of the District is
+involved, and necessary to the _general advantage_."--[Life of Pinkney,
+p.  612.]
+
+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
+_States_ and the _people_," (not of _two_ states, and a mere _fraction_
+of the people;) 2d. "Over a District placed under _their_ control," i.e.
+under the control of the _whole_ of the States, not under the control of
+_two twenty-sixths_ of them. 3d. That it was thus put under their
+Control "_for THEIR OWN benefit_," the benefit of all the States
+_equally_; not to secure special benefits to Maryland and Virginia, (or
+what it might be _conjectured_ 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 _District_,"
+except as that is _connected_ with, and _a means of promoting_ the
+_general_ advantage. If this is the case with the _District_, which is
+_directly_ concerned, it is pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia,
+who are but _indirectly_ 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 "_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_." Cong. Reg.
+vol. 1. p. 310, 11.
+
+But these are only the initiatory absurdities of this "good faith
+_implied_." 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
+_equally_ a violation for Congress to do it _with the consent_, 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 _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_,' &c.
+
+But let us see where this principle of the _thirty-six_ will lead us. If
+"implied faith" to Maryland and Virginia _restrains_ Congress from the
+abolition of slavery in the District, it _requires_ Congress to do in
+the District what those states have done within their bounds, i.e.,
+restrain _others_ from abolishing it. Upon the same principle Congress
+is _bound_, by the doctrine of Mr. Clay's resolution, to _prohibit
+emancipation_ within the District. There is no _stopping place_ for this
+plighted "faith." Congress must not only refrain from laying violent
+hands on slavery, _itself_, 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!
+
+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 _as_ it exists in those
+states. If to abolish _every_ form of slavery in the District would
+violate good faith, to abolish _the_ 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 _slavery_, but
+with the _Maryland and Virginia systems_ of slavery. The faith of those
+states not being in the preservation of _a_ system, but of _their_
+system; otherwise Congress, instead of _sustaining_, 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 _real
+estate_, 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 _until_
+Virginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any _part_ of it that
+exists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any _form_ or _appendage_ of
+it still existing in those states. 4th. _To abolish_ when they do. 5th.
+To increase or abate its rigors _when, how_, and _as_ 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.
+
+But here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states should
+steer different courses--then there would be _two_ wakes! Can Congress
+float in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! Its
+obsequiousness equals its "power of legislation in _all_ cases
+whatsoever." It can float _up_ 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 _at once_, 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 _man_ can serve two
+masters--but if "corporations have _no_ souls," analogy would absolve
+Congress on that score, or at most give it only _a very small soul_--not
+large enough to be at all in the way, as an _exception_ to the universal
+rule laid down in the maxim!
+
+In following out the absurdities of this "_implied_ good faith," it will
+be seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to
+_all the subjects_ of _legislation_ 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 _immorality_, 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,
+_unless Virginia and Maryland took the lead_, would violate the "good
+faith implied in the cession," &c.
+
+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 _possessions_ and _titles_
+confirmed to them, and be _protected_ in the enjoyment of their _rights_
+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 _held
+slaves_. Three years after the cession, the Virginia delegation in
+Congress _proposed_ 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!
+
+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
+_first_ 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.
+
+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!
+
+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 _intent_, 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!
+
+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, _will not_, 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.
+
+Have the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the
+lessons of experience? If lost to _reason_, are they dead to _instinct_
+also? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self preservation? And
+shall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal sacrifice?
+
+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.
+
+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 _amended_ form. It will
+be seen however, that it underwent no material modification.
+
+"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."
+
+The vote upon the Resolution stood as follows:
+
+_Yeas_.--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.
+
+_Nays_.--Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, PRENTISS, RUGGLES,
+SMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER.
+
+
+
+
+
+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 11271-8.txt or 11271-8.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
+
+
diff --git a/old/11271-8.zip b/old/11271-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f861bda
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/11271-8.zip
diff --git a/old/11271-h.zip b/old/11271-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c991517
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/11271-h.zip
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>&nbsp;</td>
+            <td align="left"> By The American Anti-Slavery Society &nbsp; 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&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;in resolutions of the State and National Legislatures&#8212;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>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <br></p>
+         <p>
+            POSTAGE&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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!&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;his shrieks may resound
+            through the representative hall&#8212;and the stench of his burning body
+            may enter the nostrils of the law-givers&#8212;but no vote may rebuke the
+            abomination&#8212;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&#8212;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!&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;to
+            plead the commands of the Constitution which is violated&#8212;his
+            own privileges and duties which it contemned&#8212;the rights of his
+            constituents
+
+            on which it trampled&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;when no whisper
+            shalt be heard in Congress in behalf of human rights&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;give you freedom of speech, and lock our lips&#8212;respect
+            your right of petition, and treat ours with contempt? No, fellow
+            countrymen!&#8212;we must be all free, or all slaves together. We implore
+            you, then, by all the obligations of interest, of patriotism, and of
+            religion&#8212;by the remembrance of your Fathers&#8212;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.&#8212;We ask you as freemen, not to
+            permit your constitutional privileges to be trifled with, by those who
+            have sworn to maintain them.&#8212;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&#8212;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,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<br>
+            WM. JAY,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<br>
+            JNO. RANKIN,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<br>
+            LEWIS TAPPAN,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<br>
+            S.S. JOCELYN,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<br>
+            S.E. CORNISH,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Executive Committee</i>.<br>
+            JOSHUA LEAVITT,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;/<br>
+            ABRAHAM L. COX,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;/<br>
+            AMOS A. PHELPS,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;/<br>
+            LA ROY SUNDERLAND,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;/<br>
+            THEO. S. WRIGHT,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;/<br>
+            ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR.&nbsp;/<br></p>
+         <p><br>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <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. GRIMK&Eacute;.
+
+         </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:&#8212;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&#8212;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"&#8212;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>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <br></p>
+         <p>
+            POSTAGE.&#8212;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>"&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;c. But "still," to use the language of
+            Judge Stroud "the slave is entirely under the control of his
+            master,&#8212;is unprovided with a protector,&#8212;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&#8212;without
+            trial&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;Am
+            <em>I</em> willing to see <em>my</em> husband the slave of another&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;<em>not by
+               nature</em>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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"&#8212;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 &amp;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&#8212;the
+            Methodists pumped, and stoned, and pelted with rotten
+            eggs&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;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?&#8212;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," &amp;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&#8212;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>&gt;. 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&#8212;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.&#8212;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. GRIMK&Eacute;.</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>
+
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+
+            <br>
+            VOL. I. SEPTEMBER, 1836.    No. 2.
+
+            <br><br>
+
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+
+            <br><br><br><br>
+            APPEAL
+            <br>
+            TO THE
+            <br>
+            CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH,
+            <br></h2>
+         <p>
+            BY A.E. GRIMK&Eacute;
+
+         </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:&#8212;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&#8212;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"&#8212;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>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <br></p>
+         <p>
+            POSTAGE.&#8212;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>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <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>"&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;But and And, in the 40th
+            verse&#8212;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.&#8212;(<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,&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;c. But "still," to
+            use the language of Judge Stroud "the slave is entirely under the
+            control of his master.&#8212;is unprovided
+            with a protector,&#8212;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&#8212;without
+            trial&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;Am <em>I</em> willing
+            to see my wife the slave of another&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;<em>not by nature</em>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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"&#8212;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>&nbsp;&nbsp;Life's holiest feelings crushed, <br>Where <em>woman's</em> heart is bleeding, <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;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, &amp;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&#8212;the Methodists pumped, and stoned, and pelted with rotten
+            eggs&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;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?&#8212;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," &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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. GRIMK&Eacute;.</p>
+         <p>
+            Shrewsbury, N.J., 1836.
+
+         </p>
+      </div>
+      <div class="teidiv">
+         <h2><a name="E3"></a><br><br><br><br>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <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>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <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,&#8212;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:&#8212;and so far, I rejoice in its
+            appearance. I presume&#8212;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&#8212;that conscience,
+            "which does make cowards of us all"&#8212;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&#8212;so much of mutual
+            confidence&#8212;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"&#8212;"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&#8212;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?&#8212;And if so, did the
+            lily white damsel he selected call the sable servant "my lord?"&#8212;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&#8212;"bought with his money"&#8212;was used in connexion with a
+            form of servitude which God approved&#8212;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&#8212;seed to sow it&#8212;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&#8212;none but those who construct and uphold the system of
+            abominations&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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?&#8212;under which parents
+            are exposed and sold in the market-place along with horses and cattle?&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;of assuming God's place and
+            relation towards his fellow-men. Were the master, in every case, a
+            wise and good man&#8212;as wise and good as is consistent with this
+            wicked and heaven-daring assumption on his part&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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"&#8212;that they "were used like dogs"&#8212;that
+            "they were forbidden to learn any liberal art or perform any act worthy
+            of their masters"&#8212;that "once a day they received a certain number of
+            stripes for fear they should forget they were slaves"&#8212;that, at one time,
+            "sixty thousand of them in Sicily and Italy were chained and confined
+            to work in dungeons"&#8212;that "in Rome there was a continual market
+            for slaves," and that "the slaves were commonly exposed for sale
+            naked"&#8212;that, when old, they were turned away," and that too by a
+            master, highly esteemed for his superior virtues, to starve to
+            death"&#8212;that they were thrown into ponds to be food for fish&#8212;that
+            they were in the city of Athens near twenty times as numerous as free
+            persons&#8212;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?&#8212;not,
+            for its natural effect of awakening, in your readers, the utmost abhorrence
+            of slavery:&#8212;no&#8212;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&#8212;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;&#8212;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, &amp;c., above enumerated, to
+            be sinful. His own mode of reasoning, therefore, brings him unavoidably to the
+            conclusion, that these races, games, &amp;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"&#8212;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:&#8212;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, &amp;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:&#8212;but the pirate, in the other, can
+            have no such plea&#8212;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&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<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&#8212;who was kidnapped at his birth&#8212;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&#8212;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">"&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;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>&#8212;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:&#8212;"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?&#8212;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&#8212;have
+            their education&#8212;their moral and intellectual training&#8212;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&#8212;especially
+            on those who drink their liquor&#8212;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,&#8212;into the lies,
+            theft, covetousness, adultery, murder, and what not of crime, which
+            enter into it,&#8212;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,&#8212;to
+            speak against Caesar,&#8212;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&#8212;of such, even, as have for ten, fifteen, or twenty
+            years, been reputed to be pious&#8212;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?&#8212;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,&#8212;by general and indirect instructions,&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;the leading policy of the Roman
+            government&#8212;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,&#8212;and that, too, whether he do or
+            do not say a word about slavery, or even whether he be or be not an
+            abolitionist;&#8212;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);&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;of the whole
+            world&#8212;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&#8212;that man of sanctified
+            genius&#8212;as glad to get his enemies into his hands, as she would be to
+            get him into the hands of his enemies:&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;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,"&#8212;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&#8212;of the principles contained in them&#8212;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&#8212;why is it, that the
+            influence of most of our titled divines&#8212;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&#8212;this "faith without works"&#8212;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&#8212;for the reason that the sin is ours, to a
+            far greater extent, than it was theirs&#8212;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&#8212;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:&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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"&#8212;"slave" for "servant"&#8212;and,
+            in substance, "emperor" for "ruler"&#8212;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"&#8212;Jesus
+            Christ"&#8212;Head of a family:" and where
+            <i>doulos</i> means "a
+            minister or agent"&#8212;a subject of a king"&#8212;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&#8212;upon old men and young men&#8212;upon
+            sons and daughters&#8212;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&#8212;<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&#8212;<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;&#8212;the bright-eyed little ones are eager to
+            know what the Apostle says to children&#8212;a poor slave blesses God
+            for his portion of the Apostolic counsel;&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;the slaveholder's abuse and perversion of the relation, in
+            reducing the servant to a chattel&#8212;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&#8212;so much harder than that of persons under other forms
+            of servitude&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;even we
+            would, nevertheless, tell them to "resist not evil"&#8212;to be obedient
+            unto their own masters"&#8212;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;&#8212;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;"&#8212;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;&#8212;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"&#8212;not only
+            from the burdens and abuses, as you would say, of bondage,&#8212;but
+            "out of their (the Egyptians) bondage" itself&#8212;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"&#8212;"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:&#8212;for
+            He commanded Pharaoh, not to mitigate the bondage of the
+            Israelites, but to deliver them from it&#8212;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&#8212;they have succeeded, so well, in excluding
+
+            the light and knowledge of God from the minds of their slaves&#8212;that
+            they laugh at His claim to "all souls."
+
+         </p>
+         <p>
+            3d. Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthian Church, tells servants&#8212;say
+            slaves, to suit your views&#8212;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&#8212;I use
+            your own words&#8212;"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&#8212;a slave or a
+            prisoner, as Paul probably was when he wrote this injunction?&#8212;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&#8212;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"&#8212;"Children,
+            obey your parents"&#8212;"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"&#8212;"Hide not
+            thyself from thy own flesh"&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;for the enactment of which, slavery is, of course,
+            responsible&#8212;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&#8212;this brute&#8212;this fiend&#8212;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&#8212;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?&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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;&#8212;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>&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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:&#8212;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.&#8212;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:&#8212;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&#8212;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:&#8212;yes, makes them labor unpaid&#8212;night and day&#8212;in storm, as
+            well as in sunshine&#8212;under the lash&#8212;bleeding&#8212;groaning&#8212;dying&#8212;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&#8212;he must catch, curry, and saddle his own
+
+            horse&#8212;he must black his own brogans (for he will not be able to buy
+            boots)&#8212;his wife must go herself to the wash-tub&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;"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"&#8212;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&#8212;say a slave&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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:&#8212;but, says the Great Law-giver, "The word
+            that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day:"&#8212;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&#8212;all, who have been guilty of throwing
+            God's "image" into the same class with the brutes of the field&#8212;will
+            find, that He is the avenger of his poorest, meanest ones&#8212;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&#8212;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"&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;not now as a
+            <i>slave</i>, but above a
+            <i>slave</i>&#8212;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&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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;&#8212;he would not have ascribed to them any
+            love of liberty, but the spurious kind which the other orator, impliedly,
+            ascribes to them&#8212;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"&#8212;if a free
+            government&#8212;be the poor thing&#8212;the illusive image of an American
+            brain&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;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:&#8212;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&#8212;and this is
+            the ground of the general morality of the Christian religion&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;certainly not labor&#8212;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&#8212;to suppose
+            that He believes that this state of servitude operates most beneficially,
+            both for the master and the servant&#8212;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&#8212;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:&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;is no
+            evidence in favor of its nature:&#8212;it simply proves, that its power is not
+            equal to its purposes. We see, then, that the Jews&#8212;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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">&#8212;"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!&#8212;from
+            one slave State to another!&#8212;from one plantation to another!
+            Now, such a law&#8212;a solemn commandment of God&#8212;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;&#8212;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?&#8212;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?&#8212;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?&#8212;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&#8212;I know you would&#8212;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&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;and
+            still more, whether if a considerable proportion of them were
+            thus discharged every sixth year&#8212;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:&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;this habit of graduating our morality by the laws of
+            the land in which we live&#8212;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&#8212;would nullify all the laws of
+            God against slavery&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;<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"&#8212;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;&#8212;but for this doctrine,
+            I say, you would, long ago, have heard the testimony of Northern
+            Christians against Southern slavery;&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;not merely for the purpose, as formerly, of determining
+            without any practical consequences of the determination, what
+            is the moral character of slavery&#8212;but, for the purpose of settling the
+            point, whether the institution shall stand or fall,&#8212;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&#8212;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:&#8212;for he has previously impeached
+            it, by declaring, in his slave system, that it is not to be believed&#8212;that
+            its requirements are not to be obeyed&#8212;that they are not even
+            to be read (though the Bible expressly directs that they shall be)&#8212;that
+            concubinage shall be substituted for the marriage it enjoins&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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;&#8212;and then his success will be, as before remarked,
+            at the expense of the claims and authority of the Bible:&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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;&#8212;against which, the common
+            sense, the philosophy, the humanity, the conscience of the world, are
+            arrayed;&#8212;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"&#8212;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?&#8212;whether it is befitting a man, a Christian,
+            and a minister of the gospel?&#8212;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&#8212;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 &amp; 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&#8212;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, &amp;c.
+
+         </p>
+         <p><br>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&gt;
+               <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&#8212;but the meanest and most despicable of all&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;the crowning distinction of all others&#8212;their
+               centre and circumference&#8212;the source, the test, and the measure of
+               their value&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;his right to whatever else that
+               belongs to him is merely <em>relative</em> to his right to himself&#8212;is
+               derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the
+               <i>foundation right</i>&#8212;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>&#8212;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.&#8212;For rights are <em>rights</em>; God's are no
+               more&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;the burning blains
+               on man and beast&#8212;the dust quickened into loathsome life, and cleaving
+               in swarms to every living thing&#8212;the streets, the palaces, the temples,
+               and every house heaped up with the carcasses of things abhorred&#8212;even
+               the kneading troughs and ovens, the secret chambers and the couches,
+               reeking and dissolving with the putrid death&#8212;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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:&#8212;"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&#8212;man <em>stealing</em>,
+               <em>selling</em> and <em>holding</em>. All are put on a level, and
+               whelmed under one penalty&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;a proclamation to the universe, voiced in mortal agony,
+               that MAN IS INVIOLABLE,&#8212;a confession shrieked in phrenzy at the
+               grave's mouth&#8212;"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&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;that he was unfit to move
+               among human relations who had violated one so sacred and tender.&#8212;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&#8212;the distinction between parents and
+               others, manifest, dictated by natural affection&#8212;a law of the constitution.
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               2. The act was violence to nature&#8212;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>&#8212;for violating a vital and sacred relation&#8212;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," &amp;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&#8212;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"&#8212;"<em>Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive
+                  blessing and honor"&#8212;"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&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;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,"&#8212;Whosoever shall
+               <i>offend</i> (cause to sin) one of these little
+               ones,"&#8212;Go out into the high ways and <i>compel</i>
+               (urge) them to come in,"&#8212;Only let your
+               <i>conversation</i> (habitual conduct or course of life)
+               be as becometh the Gospel,"&#8212;They that seek me
+               <i>early</i> (earnestly) shall find me,&#8212;Give me
+               <i>by and by</i> (now) in a charger, the head of John the
+               Baptist,"&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;"Thou hast
+               <em>sold thyself</em> to work evil." "There was none like to Ahab that
+               <em>sold himself</em> to work wickedness."&#8212;2 Kings xvii. 17. "They used
+               divination and enchantments, and <em>sold themselves</em> to do
+               evil."&#8212;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&#8212;Romans vii. 14, and
+               vi. 16&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;they were a grant of <em>privileges</em>&#8212;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>.&#8212;Genesis xvii.
+               9-14, 23, 27.
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               2. <em>Excommunication from the family was a</em> PUNISHMENT.&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;"<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.&#8212;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."&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;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?&#8212;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>&#8212;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."&#8212;<em>Maimonides&#8212;Hilcoth&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;"<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&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;"<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&#8212;"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &amp;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"&#8212;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&#8212;<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,&#8212;<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&#8212;<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&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;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,
+               &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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,
+               &amp;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," &amp;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&#8212;and is applied always to <em>mere
+                  property</em>&#8212;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)&#8212;that they were <em>slaves</em>&#8212;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:&#8212;"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."&#8212;Paulus Fagius<a class="notelink" href="#NoteE4_FN15"><sup>C</sup></a><a name="FootE4_FN15"></a>. "Quas
+               instituerant in religione."&#8212;"Those whom they had instructed in
+               religion."&#8212;Luke Franke, a German commentator who lived two centuries
+               ago. "Quas legi subjicerant."&#8212;"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&#8212;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,&#8212;that their interests were
+               identified with those of their master's family&#8212;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!&#8212;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&#8212;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.&#8212;Judges vii. 10, 11.&#8212;Jonathan and his
+               servant.&#8212;1 Samuel xiv. 1-14.&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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"&#8212;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>&#8212;Acts
+               vii. 20, Ex. xii. 4&#8212;and from the regulation about the eating of the
+               Passover, they could hardly have been small ones&#8212;Ex. xii. 4&#8212;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>,&#8212;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&#8212;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?&#8212;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"&#8212;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>!&#8212;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>!"&#8212;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>!&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;a keepsake to dote over&#8212;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&#8212;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>."&#8212;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>," &amp;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>," &amp;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," &amp;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," &amp;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.&#8212;"<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&#8212;the condition of the people for whom
+               it was made&#8212;their inexperience in government&#8212;ignorance of judicial
+               proceedings&#8212;laws of evidence, &amp;c., will find a moot court in
+               session, trying law points&#8212;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>."&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;in almost every instance, it is translated
+               <em>avenge</em>&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;"He condemned
+               (<i>mulcted</i>) the land in a hundred talents of
+               gold.&#8212;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, &amp;c. &amp;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," &amp;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;<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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to tributaries, to all
+               the subjects of governments, to younger sons&#8212;defining their relation to
+               the first born, who is called <i>Lord</i> and <i>ruler</i>&#8212;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."&#8212;"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&#8212;your <i>servants</i> shall always be of <i>that</i> class
+               of persons." As it stands in the original, it is plain&#8212;"<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," &amp;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&#8212;[For whom? For you <i>Israelites</i> only?]&#8212;<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>"&#8212;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,&#8212;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."&#8212;"<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,
+               &amp;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&#8212;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>&#8212;<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&#8212;"Lo, children are an <i>heritage</i> (inheritance) of the Lord."
+               Exodus xxxiv. 9&#8212;"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&#8212;"Thy testimonies
+               have I taken as a <i>heritage</i> (inheritance) forever." Ezekiel
+               xliv. 27, 28&#8212;"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&#8212;"Ask of me, and I will give thee the
+               heathen for thine <i>inheritance</i>." Psalms xciv. 14&#8212;"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&#8212;"<i>possession</i>,"
+               has been already discussed&#8212;(See <a href="#E4_prop" class="ref">p. 36</a>)&#8212;we need add in this place
+               but a word. <i>Ahusa</i> rendered "<i>possession</i>." Genesis xlii. 11&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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!&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;the Israelites and the
+               Strangers. The Israelite was to serve six years&#8212;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&#8212;if, of the first class&#8212;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&#8212;(See Lev. xxv. 35)&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>."&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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:&#8212;
+
+            </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&#8212;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>.&#8212;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>&#8212;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," &amp;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&#8212;<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&#8212;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, &amp;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,&#8212;
+
+            </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>&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;Deut. vii. 16-25, and ix. 3, and xxxi. 3, 1, 2. In these verses,
+               the Israelites are commanded to "destroy the Canaanites"&#8212;to "drive
+               out,"&#8212;"consume,"&#8212;"utterly overthrow,"&#8212;"put out,"&#8212;"dispossess
+               them," &amp;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,
+               &amp;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," &amp;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>&#8212;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&#8212;the gleanings of the harvest and vintage were
+               assigned to them, Lev. xix. 9, 10, and xxiii. 22, and 25, 6;&#8212;the blessings
+               of the Sabbath, theirs, Ex. xx. 10;&#8212;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,)&#8212;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," &amp;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.&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite, one
+               of David's memorable "thirty seven"&#8212;Rahab, who married one of the
+               princes of Judah&#8212;Ittai&#8212;The six hundred Gitites&#8212;David's bodyguard,
+               "faithful among the faithless."&#8212;2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the
+               Gittite, who was adopted into the tribe of Levi.&#8212;Compare 2 Sam. vi.
+               10, 11, with 1 Chron. xv. 18, and 1 Chron xxvi. 45. The cases of Jaziz,
+               and Obil,&#8212;1 Chron. xxvi. 30, 31, 33. Jephunneh, the father of Caleb&#8212;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.&#8212;Joshua x. 12-14. Further&#8212;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,"
+               &amp;c. seem used interchangeably with "consume," "destroy,"
+               "overthrow," &amp;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,"&#8212;In Deut. xxv. 19, "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of
+               Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it."&#8212;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," &amp;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;"<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&#8212;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."&#8212;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&#8212;if it was accepted, the inhabitants became
+               <i>tributaries</i>&#8212;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," &amp;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&#8212;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.&#8212;"<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," &amp;c. to mean unconditional individual
+               extermination.
+            </p>
+         </div>
+         <p><br>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <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&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;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.&#8212;"The souls that they had gotten," &amp;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," &amp;c.&#8212;EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,</a></li>
+               <li><a name="d0e11285"></a><a href="#E4r3_money" class="ref">"FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &amp;c.&#8212;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, &amp;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," &amp;c.</a></li>
+                  </ul>
+               </li>
+               <li><a name="d0e11303"></a><a href="#E4r3_Lev25_39" class="ref">EXAMINATION OF LEV. XXV. 39, 40.&#8212;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.&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;pupils, by teachers&#8212;patients, by physicians&#8212;corporations, by
+               charters&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;making free agents, chattels&#8212;converting
+               <i>persons</i> into <i>things</i>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;but the meanest and most despicable of all&#8212;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>&#8212;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."&#8212;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."&#8212;Civ. Code of Louisiana, Art. 35.
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               This is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a
+               person and a thing, trampled under foot&#8212;the crowning distinction of
+               all others&#8212;alike the source, the test, and the measure of their value&#8212;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>,&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;supreme robbery, that vaults up the climax at a
+               leap&#8212;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.&#8212;<em>Ten</em>
+               commandments constitute the brief compend of human
+               duty.&#8212;<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&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;the burning blains on man and beast&#8212;the dust quickened into
+               loathsome life, and swarming upon every living thing&#8212;the streets,
+               the palaces, the temples, and every house heaped up with the carcases
+               of things abhorred&#8212;the kneading troughs and ovens, the secret
+               chambers and the couches; reeking and dissolving with the putrid
+               death&#8212;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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:&#8212;"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>G&#257;n&#257;bh</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&#8212;man <em>stealing</em>,
+               <em>selling</em>, and
+               <em>holding</em>. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one
+               penalty&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;a proclamation to the universe,
+
+               voiced in mortal agony, "MAN IS INVIOLABLE"&#8212;a confession shrieked
+               in phrenzy at the grave's mouth&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;the distinction between parents
+               and others manifest, dictated by natural affection&#8212;a law of the
+               constitution. (2.) The act was violence to nature&#8212;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>&#8212;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," &amp;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&#8212;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"&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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,"&#8212;"Whosoever shall <em>offend</em> (cause to sin) one of these
+               little ones,"&#8212;"Go out into the highways and <em>compel</em> (urge)
+               them to come in,"&#8212;"Only let your <em>conversation</em> (habitual
+               conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,"&#8212;"They that seek me
+               <em>early</em> (earnestly) shall find me,"&#8212;"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&#8212;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 K&#257;n&#257;.
+
+            </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&#8212;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&#8212;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
+               M&#257;kar 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&#8212;"Thou hast <i>sold thyself</i>
+               to work evil." "There was none like to Ahab that
+               <i>sold himself</i> to work wickedness."&#8212;2 Kings
+               xvii. 17. "They used divination and enchantments, and
+               <i>sold themselves</i> to do evil."&#8212;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&#8212;Romans
+               vii. 14, vi. 16&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>.&#8212;Gen. xvii. 9-14,
+               23, 27.
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               II. Excommunication from the family was a PUNISHMENT.&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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.&#8212;"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.&#8212;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"&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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,"
+               &amp;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?&#8212;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."&#8212;<em>Maimonides&#8212;Hilcoth&#8212;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.&#8212;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>Re&#257;</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&#8212;all
+               descriptions of persons, even those who prosecute us in lawsuits and enemies
+               while in the act of fighting us&#8212;"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, &amp;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&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;"Thou shalt furnish him liberally," &amp;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&#8212;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."&#8212;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,&#8212;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>?&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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>Mikn&#277;</i>, is an
+               illustration. It is derived from
+               <i>K&#257;n&#257;</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>Mikn&#277;</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."&#8212;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)&#8212;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."&#8212;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"&#8212;"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.&#8212;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!&#8212;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&#8212;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.&#8212;1 Kings xvi. 8, 9. See also the intercourse between
+               Gideon and his servant.&#8212;Judg. vii. 10, 11. Jonathan and his
+               servant.&#8212;1 Sam. xiv. 1-14. Elisha and his servant.&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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"&#8212;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>,&#8212;Acts vii. 20. Ex. xii. 4&#8212;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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>!&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;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>H&#259;kk&#257;t&#257;n</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>B&#275;no
+                  H&#259;kk&#257;t&#257;n</i>) had done unto him, he said cursed be
+               Canaan," &amp;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.&#8212;"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&#8212;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, &amp;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>."&#8212;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&#8212;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>n&#257;k&#259;m</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&#8212;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>&#257;n&#259;sh</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>n&#257;k&#259;m</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," &amp;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>K&#257;spo-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&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;<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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#277;b&#277;dh</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&#8212;to magistrates, to all
+               governmental officers, to tributaries, to all the subjects of governments, to
+               younger sons&#8212;defining their relation to the first born, who is called
+               <em>Lord</em> and <i>ruler</i>&#8212;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>&#277;b&#277;dh</i>," yet he
+               "<em>owned</em>" (!) twenty
+               <i>&#277;b&#277;dhs</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>&#277;b&#277;dh</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&#8212;your servants shall always be of that class of
+               persons." As it stands in the original it is plain&#8212;"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, &amp;c., shall be of the
+               <i>heathen</i>. Of THEM shall ye buy," &amp;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"&#8212;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>Ol&#257;m</i>,
+               meaning <em>throughout the period</em>, whatever that may be. Whereas in
+               the 23d verse, it is <i>Ts&#277;mithuth</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 &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;pp. 37-46&#8212;we need add in this place but a
+               word, <i>&#257;huzz&#257;</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&#8212;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!&#8212;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>&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;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."&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;the Israelites
+               and the Strangers. The Israelite was to serve six years&#8212;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&#8212;if of the first class&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;(Lev. xxv. 35)&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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.&#8212;<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&#8212;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,&#8212;"<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&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;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,&#8212;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 &amp;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,&#8212;"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>&#8212;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>&#8212;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," &amp;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>h&#257;r&#259;m</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, &amp;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," &amp;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;&#8212;the gleanings
+               of the harvest and vintage were theirs, Lev. xix. 9, 10; xxiii.
+               22;&#8212;the blessings of the Sabbath, Ex. xx. 10;&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;the Canaanites, Philistines, and others, who became
+               proselytes&#8212;as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite&#8212;Rahab, who married
+               one of the princes of Judah&#8212;Ittai&#8212;the six hundred
+               Gitites&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;the terms employed in the directions regulating the disposal
+               of the Canaanites, such as "drive out," "put out," "cast out," "expel,"
+               "dispossess," &amp;c. seem used interchangeably with "consume," "destroy,"
+               "overthrow," &amp;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&#8212;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,&#8212;"of the <em>cities</em> of these people thou shalt save
+               alive nothing that breatheth." Cities
+
+               then, as now, were pest-houses of vice&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;if it was accepted, the
+               inhabitants became <i>tributaries</i>&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;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,&#8212;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," &amp;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&#8212;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:&#8212;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&#8212;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.&#8212;"THE SOULS THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN," &amp;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&#8212;"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," &amp;c.&#8212;EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,</a></li>
+               <li><a name="d0e15041"></a><a href="#E4r4_money" class="ref">"FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &amp;c.&#8212;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>, &amp;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>," &amp;c.</a></li>
+                  </ul>
+               </li>
+               <li><a name="d0e15073"></a><a href="#E4r4_Lev25_39" class="ref">EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 39, 40.&#8212;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.&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;making
+               free agents, chattels&#8212;converting <i>persons</i>
+               into <i>things</i>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;but the meanest and most despicable of
+               all&#8212;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!&#8212;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>&#8212;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."&#8212;<em>Civ. Code</em>, Art. 35.
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               This is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a person
+               and a thing, trampled under foot&#8212;the crowning distinction of all
+               others&#8212;alike the source, the test, and the measure of their
+               value&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;supreme robbery that
+               vaults up the climax at a leap&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;"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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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:&#8212;"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>G&#257;n&#257;bh</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&#8212;man <em>stealing</em>,
+               <em>selling</em>, and
+               <em>holding</em>. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one
+               penalty&#8212;<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&#8212;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,&#8212;a proclamation
+               to the universe, voiced in mortal agony, "MAN IS INVIOLABLE."&#8212;a
+               confession shrieked in phrenzy at the grave's mouth&#8212;"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&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;the distinction between parents and
+               others self-evident, dictated by a law of nature. 2. The act was violence
+               to nature&#8212;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>&#8212;<em>a distinction</em> made sacred by
+               God, and fortified by a bulwark
+               of defence. In the next verse, "He that stealeth a man," &amp;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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,"&#8212;"Whosoever shall <i>offend</i> (cause to sin) one
+               of these little
+               ones,"&#8212;Go out into the highways and <i>compel</i> (urge)
+               them to come
+               in,"&#8212;Only let your <i>conversation</i> (habitual conduct)
+               be as becometh the
+               Gospel,"&#8212;"The Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the
+               <i>quick</i> (living)
+               and the dead,"&#8212;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&#8212;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
+               (k&#257;n&#257;) 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>k&#257;n&#257;</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&#8212;"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, &amp;c., for such a sum as the parties
+               may agree upon. The Connecticut papers frequently
+               contain advertisements like the following:
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               "NOTICE&#8212;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,"&#8212;[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&#8212;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>M&#257;kar</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.&#8212;"Thou
+               hast <i>sold thyself</i> to work evil." "There was none
+               like unto Ahab which did sell <em>himself</em> to work wickedness."&#8212;2
+               Kings xvii. 17.
+               "They used divination and enchantments, and <i>sold
+                  themselves</i> to do
+               evil."&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;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.&#8212;"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.&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;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."&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;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&#8212;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?&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;"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:&#8212;"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."&#8212;<i>Maimonides&#8212;Hilcoth&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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,"&#8212;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>,&#8212;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>eb&#275;dh,</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>re&#257;</i>,
+               translated <i>neighbor</i>, means any one
+               with whom we have to do&#8212;all descriptions of persons, even those who
+               prosecute us in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of fighting
+               us&#8212;"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, &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;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.&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &amp;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&#8212;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."&#8212;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.&#8212;We answer, the prohibition, Deut xxiii. 15. 16, "Thou
+               shalt not deliver unto his master," &amp;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,&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;and
+               enumerates the five great departments of agricultural labor among
+               the Jews&#8212;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,"&#8212;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.&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;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, &amp;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, &amp;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;"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>mikn&#275;</i>, is an illustration.
+               It is derived from <i>k&#257;n&#257;</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>mikn&#275;</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)&#8212;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."&#8212;"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!&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;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," &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;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"&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;<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&#8212;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:&#8212;"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&#8212;"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.&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;The proposed
+               measure would be EXTREME CRUELTY to the blacks.&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;You would&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;
+               doom them to SCARCITY and HARD LABOR."&#8212;[Speech of Mr. Smyth, of Va.,
+               Jan. 28, 1820.]&#8212;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&#8212;which would be in
+               winter, from daybreak in the morning until <em>four hours</em> after
+               sunset!&#8212;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," &amp;c. In a work
+               entitled "Travels in Louisiana in 1802," translated from the French,
+               by John Davis, is the following testimony under this head:&#8212;
+
+
+            </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:&#8212;"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&#8212;
+
+
+            </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&#8212;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," &amp;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.&#8212;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,
+               &amp;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&#8212;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,"&#8212;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>&#8212;its violation neither injures female character in their own
+               estimation, or that of their master or mistress&#8212;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.&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;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>H&#259;kk&#257;t&#257;n</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>B&#275;no
+                  H&#259;kk&#257;t&#257;n</i>) "had done unto him, he said cursed be
+               Canaan," &amp;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
+               &#257;v, 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.&#8212;"<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, &amp;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>."&#8212;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&#8212;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>n&#257;k&#259;m</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&#8212;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>&#257;n&#259;sh</i>.) "He shall
+               <em>pay</em> as the judges determine." The simple meaning of the word
+               <i>&#257;n&#259;sh</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>n&#257;k&#257;m</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," &amp;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>K&aacute;spo-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&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;<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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#277;b&#277;dh</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&#8212;defining their relation to the first born, who
+               is called <em>lord</em> and <em>ruler</em>&#8212;to prophets, to
+               kings, and to the Messiah. To argue from the meaning of the word
+               <i>&#277;b&#277;dh</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>&#259;b&#259;dh</i>,
+               to serve, answering to the noun
+               <i>&#277;b&#277;dh</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,
+               &amp;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>&#277;b&#277;dh</i>," yet he
+               "<i>owned</i>" (!) twenty
+               <i>&#277;b&#277;dhs</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>&#277;b&#277;dh</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&#8212;"<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, &amp;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," &amp;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"&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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."&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;if of the first class&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;(Lev. xxv. 35)&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;<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&#8212;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&#8212;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,"
+            &amp;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.&#8212;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, &amp;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,&#8212;"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," &amp;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>h&#257;r&#257;m</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, &amp;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," &amp;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,&#8212;the gleanings of the harvest and vintage were theirs,
+               Lev. xix. 9, 10; xxiii. 22;&#8212;the blessings of the Sabbath, Ex. xx.
+               10;&#8212;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, &amp;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," &amp;c., are some of them.&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;in one of thy gates where it
+               liketh <em>him</em> best&#8212;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&#8212;the Canaanites, Philistines and
+               others, who became proselytes&#8212;as the Nethenims, Uriah the
+               Hittite&#8212;Rahab, who married one of the princes of Judah&#8212;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.&#8212;Ittai&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;the terms
+               employed in the directions regulating the disposal of the Canaanites, such
+               as "drive out," "put out," "cast out," "expel," "dispossess," &amp;c., seem
+               used interchangeably with "consume," "destroy," "overthrow," &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;if it was accepted,
+               the inhabitants became <i>tributaries</i>&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;"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,' &amp;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," &amp;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," &amp;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,&#8212;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," &amp;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>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <br></p>
+         <p>
+            REPRINTED FROM THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, WITH ADDITIONS BY THE
+            AUTHOR.
+
+         </p>
+         <p><br>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <br></p>
+         NEW-YORK:
+
+         <p>
+            PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
+            <br>
+            NO. 143 NASSAU-STREET.
+            <br>
+            1838.
+
+         </p>
+         <p><br>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <br></p>
+         <p>
+            This periodical contains 3 1/2 sheets.&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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?&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;<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"&#8212;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&#8212;gives power to exact it in all
+               <em>respects&#8212;requiring</em> certain acts, and
+               <em>prohibiting</em> others&#8212;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>&#8212;separating families, destroying marriages,
+               floggings for learning the alphabet and reading the Bible&#8212;robbing
+               them of their oath, of jury trial, and of the right to worship
+               God according to conscience&#8212;the legislature has power to specify
+               each of these acts&#8212;declare that it is not "<em>humane</em>
+               treatment," and PROHIBIT it.&#8212;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"&#8212;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!&#8212;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, &amp;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>."&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;supreme
+               slavery&#8212;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;being indeed
+               the <em>principles themselves</em>, in preceptive
+               form&#8212;representatives alike of the nature and the power of the
+               Government&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;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:&#8212;"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."&#8212;(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&#8212;this commiseration&#8212;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:&#8212;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&#8212;and we believe
+               HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY PERSONS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE
+               CONSTITUTION."
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               Finally&#8212;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&#8212;may abolish the slave trade between the States; that is, it may
+                  prohibit their being carried out of the State in which they are&#8212;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>,&#8212;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&#8212;at least a hint&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;equally to the point&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;c. And now verily "they would not have ceded if
+               they had <em>supposed</em>!" &amp;c. Cede it they <em>did</em>, and
+               "in full and absolute right both of soil and persons." Congress accepted the
+               cession&#8212;state power over the District ceased, and congressional power
+               over it commenced&#8212;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&#8212;the CONSTITUTION&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;not that of a majority,
+               however large. Majorities, to be authoritative, must be
+               <em>legal</em>&#8212;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&#8212;and an organ to make it known&#8212;and an executive to carry it
+               into effect&#8212;Where are they? We repeat it&#8212;if the consent of the
+               people of the District be necessary, the consent of <em>every one</em>
+               is necessary&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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."&#8212;(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," &amp;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&#8212;a very great and crying
+               sin&#8212;<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&#8212;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," &amp;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>&#8212;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,&#8212;a conflict in which THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING DAILY
+               RECRUITS. Be not, therefore discouraged&#8212;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>."&#8212;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," &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;impolitic in its principles&#8212;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&#8212;"The memorial of the
+               <em>Virginia Society</em>, for promoting the Abolition of Slavery,
+               &amp;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>"&#8212;[<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."&#8212;[<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."&#8212;[<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>"&#8212;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)&#8212;"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,&#8212;"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>."&#8212;[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&#8212;men
+               of commanding talents and sway&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;released from the shackles of slavery, by the
+               justice of government and the bounty of individuals&#8212;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>."&#8212;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:&#8212;"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&#8212;by the patriotism of Mason and Lee&#8212;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:&#8212;"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&#8212;"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&#8212;"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&#8212;nor their
+               testimony comments to make it intelligible&#8212;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&#8212;then "neither will he
+               be persuaded though THEY rose from the dead."
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               Some of the points established by the testimony are&#8212;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&#8212;had committed itself before the
+               world to a course of action against slavery, wherever she could move
+               upon it without encountering a conflicting jurisdiction&#8212;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&#8212;that the chairman of the committee
+               that reported the ordinance was a slaveholder&#8212;that the ordinance
+               was enacted by Congress during the session of the convention
+               that formed the United States Constitution&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;the rights of minorities, <em>rights</em> no
+               longer&#8212;free speech struck dumb&#8212;free <em>men</em> outlawed and
+               murdered&#8212;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&#8212;free speech and a free press</em>&#8212;their
+               reverence for justice, liberty, <em>rights</em> and all-pervading law,
+               where are they?
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               But we turn from these considerations&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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?&#8212;to the <em>interest</em>,
+               than the owner of the <em>principal</em>?&#8212;to the hands and arms,
+               than he from whose shoulders they swing?&#8212;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&#8212;and in the abolition of slavery no such thing is done. A
+               legislative act changes the <em>condition</em> of the slave&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;all necessity, public welfare,
+               and the will and power of the government to the contrary
+               notwithstanding&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;c., to
+               abolish the Post Office system, the privilege of patents and copyrights,
+               &amp;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>&#8212;a refusal to recognise
+               them as chattels&#8212;"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.&#8212;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,"&#8212;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>."&#8212;[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,"&#8212;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&#8212;the source of all
+               others&#8212;the original stock by which they are accumulated&#8212;the
+               principal, of which they are the interest. And since the slave's "private
+               property" has been "taken," and since "compensation" is impossible&#8212;there
+               being no <em>equivalent</em> for one's self&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;now
+               <em>free plunder</em>&#8212;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&#8212;none to protect <em>any</em>&#8212;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&#8212;all
+               men&#8212;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,&#8212;"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&#8212;"Congress shall have power to suppress
+               insurrections"&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;to
+               remove or tear down unsafe buildings&#8212;to destroy infected
+               cargoes&#8212;to lay injunctions upon manufactories injurious to the public
+               health&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;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,&#8212;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;making secret thoughts public property, and proclaiming
+               on the house-tops what is whispered in the ear&#8212;smiting off masks,
+               and bursting open sepulchres beautiful outwardly, and heaving up to the sun
+               their dead men's bones. To such we say,&#8212;<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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;that Congress has no power by the
+               constitution to abolish slavery in the District&#8212;yet in the main they
+               silently drew off from it.
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               The passage of this resolution&#8212;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&#8212;offered by a southern
+               senator, advocated by southern senators, and on the ground that it "was no
+               compromise"&#8212;that it embodied the true southern principle&#8212;that
+               "this resolution stood on as high ground as Mr. Calhoun's."&#8212;(Mr.
+               Preston)&#8212;"that Mr. Clay's resolution was as strong as Mr.
+               Calhoun's"&#8212;(Mr. Rives)&#8212;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."&#8212;(Mr. Walker, of
+               Mi.)&#8212;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&#8212;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," &amp;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,&#8212;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>,"&#8212;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>, &amp;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,&#8212;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&#8212;that in their <em>terms</em> there is nothing restricting
+               the power of Congress on the subject of slavery in the District&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;proofs of which
+               are given in scores on the preceding pages&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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?&#8212;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:&#8212;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&#8212;instructions not to
+               be disregarded without a violation of that, "good faith implied in the
+               cession," &amp;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!&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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>."&#8212;[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&#8212;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,"
+               &amp;c. &amp;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>, &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;because such
+               provisions would conflict with the existing slave laws of Virginia and
+               Maryland, and thus violate the "good faith implied," &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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, &amp;c., in the District, <em>unless Virginia and Maryland took
+                  the lead</em>, would violate the "good faith implied in the cession,"
+               &amp;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,&#8212;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;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>.&#8212;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>.&#8212;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>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <br><br>
+            THE
+            <br><br>
+            POWER OF CONGRESS
+            <br><br>
+            OVER THE
+            <br><br>
+            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
+
+         </h2>
+         <p><br>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <br></p>
+         <p>
+            ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF
+            "WYTHE."
+
+         </p>
+         <p><br>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <br></p>
+         <p>
+            WITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR.
+
+         </p>
+         <p><br>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <br></p>
+         NEW-YORK:
+
+         <p>
+            PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY
+            <br>
+            NO. 143 NASSAU-STREET.
+
+         </p>
+         <p>
+            1838.
+
+         </p>
+         <p><br>
+            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*
+            <br></p>
+         <p>
+            This periodical contains 3-1/2 sheets&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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?&#8212;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&#8212;<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"&#8212;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&#8212;gives power to
+               exact it in <em>all respects&#8212;requiring</em> certain acts, and
+               <em>prohibiting</em> others&#8212;maiming, branding, chaining together,
+               separating families, floggings for learning the alphabet, for reading the
+               Bible, for worshiping God according to conscience&#8212;the legislature has
+               power to specify each of
+
+               these acts&#8212;declare that it is not "<em>humane</em> treatment," and
+               PROHIBIT it.&#8212;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"&#8212;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!&#8212;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,
+               &amp;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>."&#8212;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.&#8212;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&#8212;supreme
+               slavery&#8212;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;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.&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;being indeed the
+               <em>principles themselves</em>, in preceptive form&#8212;representatives
+               alike of the nature and the power of the Government&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;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:&#8212;"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.&#8212;In a report of the committee on the District,
+               Jan. 11, 1837, by their chairman, Mr. Powell of Va., there is the following
+               declaration:&#8212;"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."&#8212;[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:&#8212;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&#8212;may abolish the slave trade between the States;
+                     that is, it may prohibit their being carried out of the State in which they
+                     are&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;at
+               least a hint&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;equally
+               to the point&#8212;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&#8212;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>!" &amp;c. Cede it they <em>did</em>, and
+               in "full and absolute right both of soil and persons." Congress accepted the
+               cession&#8212;state power over the District ceased, and congressional power
+               over it commenced&#8212;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&#8212;THE CONSTITUTION&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;not that of a majority,
+               however large. Majorities, to be authoritative, must be
+               <em>legal</em>&#8212;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&#8212;and an organ to make it known&#8212;and an executive
+               to carry it into effect&#8212;Where are they? We repeat it&#8212;if the
+               consent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of <em>every
+                  one</em> is necessary&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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."&#8212;[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," &amp;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>," &amp;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>.&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Slavery
+               is, <em>in every instance</em>, wrong, unrighteous, and
+               oppressive&#8212;a very great and crying sin&#8212;<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:&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;"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:&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;Therefore
+               be it enacted, that no child born hereafter be a slave," &amp;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>&#8212;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,&#8212;a conflict in which THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING
+               DAILY RECRUITS. Be not, therefore, discouraged&#8212;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>"&#8212;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," &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;impolitic in its principles&#8212;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&#8212;"The memorial of the
+               <em>Virginia Society</em>, for promoting the Abolition of Slavery,
+               &amp;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>."&#8212;[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."&#8212;[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."&#8212;[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>."&#8212;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)&#8212;"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,&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<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.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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,&#8212;"The dictates of humanity, the principles of
+               the people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent
+               policy, require it of us.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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>."&#8212;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&#8212;men
+               of commanding talents and sway&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;released from the shackles of slavery, by the
+               justice of government and the bounty of individuals&#8212;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>."&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;by the
+               patriotism of Mason and Lee&#8212;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:&#8212;"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,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;* 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&#8212;"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&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;then "neither will he
+               be persuaded though THEY rose from the dead."
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               Some of the points established by the testimony are&#8212;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&#8212;had committed itself before the
+               world to a course of action against slavery, wherever she could move
+               upon it without encountering a conflicting jurisdiction&#8212;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&#8212;that the chairman of the committee
+               that reported the ordinance was a slaveholder&#8212;that the ordinance
+               was enacted by Congress during the session of the convention
+               that formed the United States Constitution&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;the rights of minorities, <em>rights</em> no
+               longer&#8212;free speech struck dumb&#8212;free <em>men</em> outlawed and
+               murdered&#8212;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&#8212;free speech and a free press</em>&#8212;their
+               reverence for justice, liberty, <em>rights</em> and all-pervading law,
+               where are they?
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               But we turn from these considerations&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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?&#8212;to the <em>interest</em>,
+               than the owner of the <em>principal</em>?&#8212;to the hands and arms,
+               than he from whose shoulders they swing?&#8212;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&#8212;and in
+               the abolition of slavery no such thing is done. A legislative act changes the
+               <em>condition</em> of the slave&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;all necessity, public welfare,
+               and the will and power of the government to the contrary
+               notwithstanding&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;c., to
+               abolish the Post Office system, the privilege of patents and copyrights,
+               &amp;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>&#8212;a refusal to recognise them as
+               chattels&#8212;"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.&#8212;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,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;* determined to keep up a market where
+               MEN should be bought and sold,"&#8212;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>"&#8212;[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,"&#8212;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&#8212;the source of all others&#8212;the
+               original stock by which they are accumulated&#8212;the principal, of which
+               they are the interest. And since the slave's "private property" has been
+               "taken," and since "compensation" is impossible&#8212;there being no
+               <em>equivalent</em> for one's self&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;now <em>free
+                  plunder</em>&#8212;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&#8212;none to protect <em>any</em>&#8212;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&#8212;all
+               men&#8212;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,&#8212;"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&#8212;"Congress shall have power to suppress insurrections"&#8212;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&#8212;"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&#8212;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&#8212;to
+               remove or tear down unsafe buildings&#8212;to destroy infected
+               cargoes&#8212;to lay injunctions upon manufactories injurious to the public
+               health&#8212;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&#8212;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, &amp;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&#8212;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,&#8212;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;making
+               secret thoughts public property, and proclaiming on the house-tops what is
+               whispered in the ear&#8212;smiting off masks, and bursting open sepulchres
+               beautiful outwardly, and heaving up to the sun their dead men's bones. To
+               such we say,&#8212;<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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;that Congress has no power by the
+               constitution to abolish slavery in the District&#8212;yet in the main they
+               silently drew off from it.
+
+            </p>
+            <p>
+               The passage of this resolution&#8212;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&#8212;offered by a southern
+               senator, advocated by southern senators, and on the ground that it "was no
+               compromise"&#8212;that it embodied the true southern principle&#8212;that
+               "this resolution stood on as high ground as Mr. Calhoun's"&#8212;(Mr.
+               Preston)&#8212;"that Mr. Clay's resolution was as strong as Mr.
+               Calhoun's"&#8212;(Mr.  Rives)&#8212;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."&#8212;(Mr. Walker,
+               of Mi.)&#8212;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&#8212;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." &amp;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,&#8212;<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>,"&#8212;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>, &amp;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,&#8212;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&#8212;that in their <em>terms</em> there is nothing restricting
+               the power of Congress on the subject of slavery in the District&#8212;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;&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;proofs of which are given in scores on the
+               preceding pages&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8212;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?&#8212;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:&#8212;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&#8212;instructions not to
+               be disregarded without a violation of that "good faith implied in the
+               cession," &amp;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!&#8212;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>&#8212;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&#8212;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>."&#8212;[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&#8212;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," &amp;c. &amp;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>,' &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;because such provisions would conflict with the existing slave
+               laws of Virginia and Maryland, and thus violate the "good faith implied,"
+               &amp;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&#8212;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&#8212;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>&#8212;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, &amp;c., in the District, <em>unless Virginia and Maryland took
+                  the lead</em>, would violate the "good faith implied in the cession,"
+               &amp;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,&#8212;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,&#8212;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&#8212;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,&#8212;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>.&#8212;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>.&#8212;Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS,
+               PRENTISS, RUGGLES, SMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER.
+
+            </p>
+         </div>
+      </div>
+      <hr>
+      <address>&nbsp; 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>
diff --git a/old/11271.txt b/old/11271.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7641e69
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/11271.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,24290 @@
+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: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, PART 1 OF 4 ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Stan Goodman, Amy Overmyer and PG Distributed Proofreaders
+
+
+
+
+THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER PART 1 OF 4
+
+BY The American Anti-Slavery Society
+
+1836
+
+
+
+
+
+
+    No. 1. To the People of the United States; or, To Such Americans
+    As Value Their Rights, and Dare to Maintain Them.
+
+    No. 2. Appeal to the Christian Women of the South.
+
+    No. 2. Appeal to the Christian Women of the South. Revised and
+    Corrected.
+
+    No. 3. Letter of Gerrit Smith to Rev. James Smylie, of the State
+    of Mississippi.
+
+    No. 4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the
+    Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human Rights.
+
+    No. 4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the
+    Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human Rights.
+    Third Edition--Revised.
+
+    No. 4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the
+    Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human Rights.
+    Fourth Edition--Enlarged.
+
+    No. 5. Power of Congress Over the District of Columbia.
+
+    No. 5. Power of Congress Over the District of Columbia. With
+    Additions by the Author.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER
+
+
+
+VOL. I. AUGUST, 1836. NO. 1.
+
+
+
+TO THE
+
+PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES;
+
+OR, TO SUCH AMERICANS AS VALUE THEIR RIGHTS, AND
+
+DARE TO MAINTAIN THEM.
+
+
+FELLOW COUNTRYMEN!
+
+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]." 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[B]. 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[C]. 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[D].
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Churches in New-York attacked by the mob in 1834.]
+
+
+[Footnote C: See two cases within the last twelve months in New
+Hampshire.]
+
+
+[Footnote D: Samuel Beardsley, Esq. the leader of the Utica riot, was
+shortly afterwards appointed Attorney General of the state of New-York.]
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+POSTAGE--This Periodical contains one sheet, postage under 100 miles, is
+1 1-2 cents over 100 miles, 2 1-2 cents.
+
+"The freedom of the press--the palladium of liberty," was once a
+household proverb. Now, a printing office[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[B].
+
+[Footnote A: Office of the Utica Standard and Democrat newspaper.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: See speech of the Hon. Silas Wright in the U.S. Senate of
+Feb. 1836.]
+
+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 _political_ 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.
+
+
+    "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.
+
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _no
+action can be had_? 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.
+
+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]. 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 _by a
+resolution_, and not by law!
+
+[Footnote 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."]
+
+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 _any way_ or to _any extent_ whatever to the subject of slavery,"
+shall be laid on the table, and "no further action _whatever_ 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!
+
+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 _any way_, or to _any extent_, relating to slavery!
+
+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.
+
+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, _in any way_, or to _any
+extent whatever_, 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
+_in all cases whatsoever_." 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].
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+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] 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!!"
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+In March, 1816, John Randolph submitted the following resolution to the
+House of Representatives: "_Resolved_, That a Committee be appointed to
+inquire into the existence of an _inhuman_ 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
+_was adopted_. Such a resolution would _now_ "be laid on the table," and
+treated with silent contempt.
+
+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 _only one_ 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 _any_ petition relating to slavery.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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. "_Resolved_, 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!
+
+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]. 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!
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+"Whereas, it is extremely important and desirable that the AGITATION on
+this subject should be finally ARRESTED, for the purpose of restoring
+_tranquillity_ to the public mind, your committee respectfully recommend
+the following resolution."
+
+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!
+
+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 _only_ 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.
+
+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. _We_ 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 _alone_. 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+_In behalf of the American Anti-Slavery Society._
+
+
+ARTHUR TAPPAN,      \
+
+WM. JAY,             \
+
+JNO. RANKIN,          \
+
+LEWIS TAPPAN,          \
+
+S.S. JOCELYN,           \
+
+S.E. CORNISH,           |   _Executive Committee_.
+
+JOSHUA LEAVITT,         /
+
+ABRAHAM L. COX,        /
+
+AMOS A. PHELPS,       /
+
+LA ROY SUNDERLAND,   /
+
+THEO. S. WRIGHT,    /
+
+ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR. /
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+Published by the American Anti-Slavery Society, corner of Spruce and
+Nassau Streets.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+
+
+VOL. I.     SEPTEMBER 1836.     No. 2.
+
+
+
+
+APPEAL
+
+TO THE
+
+CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH,
+
+
+
+
+BY A.E. GRIMKE.
+
+    "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 _if I perish, I perish._" Esther IV.
+    13-16.
+
+
+RESPECTED FRIENDS,
+
+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 _now_, 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.
+
+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 _no_ personal interest whatever in _me_. But I feel an
+interest in _you_, 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 _you_, 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 _do feel_ and _do pray_ 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
+_not_ 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 _truths in
+love_, and remember Solomon says, "faithful are the _wounds_ of a
+friend." I do not believe the time has yet come when _Christian women_
+"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 _you_.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+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.
+
+To all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers, (for you
+are all _one_ 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 _supporters_ of the slave
+system," says Jonathan Dymond in his admirable work on the Principles of
+Morality, "will _hereafter_ be regarded with the _same_ public feeling,
+as he who was an advocate for the slave trade _now is_." It will be, and
+that very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged by all the
+virtuous and the candid, that in _principle_ 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 _all_ men are created equal, and that they have
+certain _inalienable_ rights among which are life, _liberty_, and the
+pursuit of happiness." It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a man
+can be legally born a slave under _our free Republican_ 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 _all_ men, every where and
+of every color are born equal, and have an _inalienable right to
+liberty_, then it is equally true that _no_ man can be born a slave, and
+no man can ever _rightfully_ be reduced to _involuntary_ bondage and
+held as a slave, however fair may be the claim of his master or mistress
+through wills and title-deeds.
+
+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 _this test_ 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 _no additional_ 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
+_irrational_ beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion
+over _all of them_ is granted, yet _man_ is _never_ vested with this
+dominion _over his fellow man;_ he was never told that any of the human
+species were put _under his feet;_ it was only _all things_, and man,
+who was created in the image of his Maker, _never_ can properly be
+termed a _thing_, though the laws of Slave States do call him "a chattel
+personal;" _Man_ then, I assert _never_ was put _under the feet of man_,
+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.
+
+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 _not_ tell us what
+_ought to be_, 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 _not
+cover one sin_ in the awful day of account. Hear what our Saviour says
+on this subject; "it must needs be that offences come, but _woe unto
+that man through whom they come_"--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, _ye_ have taken, and by _wicked_ hands have
+crucified and slain." Other striking instances might be adduced, but
+these will suffice.
+
+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 mine_ heir." From this it appears that one of his _servants_ 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 _his_ 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, _every_ 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 _servants_ 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 _rights of servants_ 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 _household_ 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;
+_Are you_ careful to have _all_ that are born in your house or bought
+with money of any stranger, baptized? Are _you_ as faithful as Abraham
+to command _your household to keep the way of the Lord?_ I leave it to
+your own consciences to decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like
+American Slavery?
+
+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 _servitude_ 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.
+
+1. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself, i.e. his
+services, for six years, in which case _he_ received the purchase money
+_himself_. Lev. xxv, 39.
+
+2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e. his _daughters_,
+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 _father_ received
+the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were
+in the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives_, _not_ as slaves. Ex.
+xxi, 7.
+
+3. Insolvent debtors might be delivered to their creditors as servants.
+2 Kings iv, 1.
+
+4. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold for
+the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.
+
+5. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.
+
+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 _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred,
+and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.
+
+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 _they had sold themselves_ in the dark hour of
+adversity? No! Were they born in slavery? No! No! not according to
+_Jewish Law_, for the servants who were born in servitude among them,
+were born of parents who had _sold themselves_ 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,
+_their_ fathers _never_ have received the poor compensation of silver or
+gold for the tears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless
+bondage of _their_ 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 _fathers of the South ever sell
+their daughters?_ My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the
+awful affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell
+their daughters, _not_ 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 _not_ become slaves in any of the six different ways in which
+Hebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters
+_cannot_ according to _Jewish law_ substantiate their claim to the men,
+women, or children they now hold in bondage.
+
+But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced to
+servitude; it was this, he might he _stolen_ 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]." As I have tried American Slavery by _legal_ Hebrew
+servitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that Jewish law
+cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by _illegal_
+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
+_to Hebrew Law they have been stolen_.
+
+[Footnote 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 _that thief shall die_, and thou shalt put away evil from
+among you." Deut. xxiv, 7.]
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _children_ of these servants ever were reduced
+to servitude. Lev. xxv, 44.
+
+I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of Hebrew
+masters over their _heathen_ slaves. Were the southern slaves taken
+captive in war? No! Were they bought from the heathen? No! for surely,
+no one will _now_ 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 _not_ 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?
+
+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 _both_ 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:
+
+1. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God.
+
+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].
+
+[Footnote A: And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt
+not let him go away empty: 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, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv,
+13, 14.]
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _forever_. Ex. xxi, 3-6.
+
+6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that
+it perish, he shall let him go _free_ 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 _free_ for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.
+
+7. On the Sabbath rest was secured to servants by the fourth
+commandment. Ex. xx, 10.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+From these laws we learn that Hebrew men servants were bound to serve
+their masters _only six_ 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 _there_ his ear was _publicly_
+bored, and by submitting to this operation he testified his willingness
+to serve him _forever_, i.e. during his life, for Jewish Rabbins who
+must have understood Jewish _slavery_, (as it is called,) "affirm that
+servants were set free at the death of their masters and did _not_
+descend to their heirs:" or that he was to serve him until the year of
+Jubilee, when _all_ 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 _free_,
+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."
+
+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 _only_ 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 _things_, "chattels personal;" if so, why were so
+many laws made to _secure their rights as men_, and to ensure their
+rising into equality and freedom? If they were mere _things_, 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
+_female_ Jewish servants were protected by _law_.
+
+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.
+
+2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after
+the manner of daughters.
+
+3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of
+marriage, shall he not diminish.
+
+4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out _free_
+without money.
+
+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 _always_ 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 _go out free_ without money."
+Thus were the _rights of female servants carefully secured by law_ under
+the Jewish Dispensation; and now I would ask, are the rights of female
+slaves at the South thus secured? Are _they_ sold only as wives and
+daughters-in-law, and when not treated as such, are they allowed to _go
+out free_? No! They have _all_ not only been illegally obtained as
+servants according to Hebrew law, but they are also illegally _held_ in
+bondage. Masters at the South and West have all forfeited their claims,
+(_if they ever had any_,) to their female slaves.
+
+We come now to examine the case of those servants who were "of the
+heathen round about;" Were _they_ 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 _alien
+born_ slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew Church by circumcision,
+_there is no doubt_ but that it applied to _all_ 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.
+
+There are however two other laws which I have not yet noticed. The one
+effectually prevented _all involuntary_ servitude, and the other
+completely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were
+equally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew.
+
+1. "Thou shall _not_ 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 _not_ oppress him." Deut. xxxiii; 15, 16.
+
+2. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim _Liberty_
+throughout _all_ the land, unto _all_ the inhabitants thereof: it shall
+be a jubilee unto you." Deut. xxv, 10.
+
+Here, then, we see that by this first law, the _door of Freedom was
+opened wide to every servant who_ had any cause whatever for complaint;
+if he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him,
+and _no man_ had a right to deliver him back to him again, and not only
+so, but the absconded servant was to _choose_ 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 _by law_ 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 _human_ law, under the _Christian
+Dispensation_, in the _nineteenth century_ we are commanded to do, what
+_God_ more than _three thousand_ years ago, under the _Mosaic
+Dispensation_, _positively commanded_ the Jews _not_ to do. In the wide
+domain even of our free states, there is not _one_ 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 _man_, by the strong
+arm of the law; no! _not one_. 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, _consenting_ unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the
+raiment of them that slew him, I know not; but one thing I do know, the
+_guilt of the North_ 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, "_Who_ hath required _this_ at thy hand?" It will be found _no_
+excuse then that the Constitution of our country required that _persons
+bound to service_ escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no
+more excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the
+forbidden fruit. _He was condemned and punished because_ he hearkened to
+the voice of _his wife_, rather than to the command of his Maker; and
+_we_ will assuredly be condemned and punished for obeying _Man_ rather
+than _God_, if we do not speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for
+repentance. Yea, are we not receiving chastisement even _now_?
+
+But by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is
+disclosed. If the first effectually prevented _all involuntary
+servitude_, the last absolutely forbade even _voluntary servitude being
+perpetual_. On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the
+Jubilee trumpet was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and _Liberty_
+was proclaimed to _all_ the inhabitants thereof. I will not say that the
+servants' _chains_ fell off and their _manacles_ were burst, for there
+is no evidence that Jewish servants _ever_ 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 _heathen_ 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 _perpetual servitude_ existing among
+them.
+
+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
+_slavery_ when speaking of Jewish servitude; and simply for this reason,
+that _no such thing_ existed among that people; the word translated
+servant does _not_ mean _slave_, it is the same that is applied to
+Abraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets generally. _Slavery_ then
+_never_ 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 "_God sanctioned, yea commanded
+slavery_ 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 _ever_ sanctioned such a system
+of cruelty and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him.
+
+We have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard to
+servants was designed to _protect them_ as _men and women_, to secure to
+them their _rights_ as _human beings_, 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.
+
+1. _Slavery_ is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the
+slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest
+posterity.
+
+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].
+
+[Footnote 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, _one quart_ of
+corn per day, or _one peck_ per week, or _one bushel_ 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 _always_ be defeated."
+ED.]
+
+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.
+
+4. Slaves can make no contracts and have no _legal_ right to any
+property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings and the legacies
+of friends belong in point of law to their masters.
+
+5. Neither a slave nor a free colored person can be a witness against
+any _white_, 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 _slave_; but they may give testimony
+_against a fellow slave_, or free colored man, even in cases affecting
+life, if the _master_ is to reap the advantage of it.
+
+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.
+
+7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under _any_
+circumstances, _his_ only safety consists in the fact that his _owner_
+may bring suit and recover the price of his body, in case his life is
+taken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor.
+
+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.
+
+9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations.
+
+10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the
+master is willing to enfranchise them.
+
+11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious
+instruction and consolation.
+
+12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of
+the lowest ignorance.
+
+13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right.
+What is a trifling fault in the _white_ man, is considered highly
+criminal in the _slave_; the same offences which cost a white man a few
+dollars only, are punished in the negro with death.
+
+14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color[A].
+
+[Footnote A:  See Mrs. Child's Appeal, Chap. II.]
+
+Shall I ask you now my friends, to draw the _parallel_ between Jewish
+_servitude_ and American _slavery_? No! For there is _no likeness_ in
+the two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The laws of
+Moses _protected servants_ in their _rights as men and women_, guarded
+them from oppression and defended them from wrong. The Code Noir of the
+South _robs the slave of all his rights_ as a _man_, reduces him to a
+chattel personal, and defends the _master_ 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
+_thing_; before we can claim the right to set our feet upon his neck,
+because it was only _all things_ which were originally _put under the
+feet of man_ by the Almighty and Beneficent Father of all, who has
+declared himself to be _no respecter_ of persons, whether red, white, or
+black.
+
+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. That he saw nothing of
+_perpetual_ servitude is certain from the simple declaration made by
+himself in John, viii, 35. "The servant abideth _not_ in the house for
+ever, the son abideth ever." If then He did not condemn Jewish
+_temporary_ servitude, this does not prove that he would not have
+condemned such a monstrous system as that of AMERICAN _slavery_, if that
+had existed among them. But did not Jesus condemn slavery? Let us
+examine some of his precepts. "_Whatsoever_ ye would that men should do
+to you, do _ye even so to them_." Let every slaveholder apply these
+queries to his own heart; Am _I_ willing to be a slave--Am _I_ willing
+to see _my_ husband the slave of another--Am _I_ willing to see my
+mother a slave, or my father, my _white_ sister, or my _white_ brother?
+If _not_, then in holding others as slaves, I am doing what I would
+_not_ wish to be done to me or any relative I have; and thus have I
+broken this golden rule which was given _me_ to walk by.
+
+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 _my little
+child_ to slavery? You know that _if it is brought up a slave_, 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--_not by
+nature_--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 "_God never made a slave_," he
+made man upright; his back was _not_ made to carry burdens as the slave
+of another, nor his neck to wear a yoke, and the _man_ must be crushed
+within him, before _his_ back can be _fitted_ to the burden of perpetual
+slavery; and that his back is _not_ 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 _they_ were all placed _under the
+feet of man_, 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 _not so with
+man_, intellectual, immortal man! I appeal to you, my friends, as
+mothers; Are you willing to enslave _your_ children? You start back with
+horror and indignation at such a question. But why, if slavery is _no
+wrong_ 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 _your children_ 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
+_yourselves_, that you involuntarily shrink from the test; as soon as
+_your_ actions are weighed in _this_ balance of the sanctuary, that _you
+are found wanting?_ Try yourselves by another of the Divine precepts,
+"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Can we love a man _as_ we
+love _ourselves_ 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 _not_ to be ministered unto, but to
+minister." Can you for a moment imagine the meek, and lowly, and
+compassionate Saviour, a _slaveholder_? do you not shudder at this
+thought as much as at that of his being a _warrior_? But why, if slavery
+is not sinful?
+
+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 _bound to protect_ the runaway, _he had no
+right_ 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, _not_ now as a
+_servant_, but _above_ 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 _me_ therefore as a partner, _receive him as myself._" 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 _slave_, 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 _nothing from a servant_, though he be
+lord of all. But is under _tutors_ and governors until the time
+appointed of the father." From this it appears, that the means of
+_instruction_ were provided for _servants_ 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 _your
+slaves_? are their minds enlightened, and they gradually prepared to
+rise from the grade of menials into that of _free_, independent members
+of the state? Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience,
+answer these questions.
+
+If this apostle sanctioned _slavery_, 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) _forbearing threatening_; knowing that your master also is in
+heaven, neither is _there respect of persons with him_." And in
+Colossians, "Masters give unto your servants that which is _just and
+equal_, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." Let slaveholders
+only _obey_ these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery would
+soon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to _threaten_ 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, "_no striker_." Let
+masters give unto their servants that which is _just_ and _equal_, and
+all that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. Yes,
+and if they once felt they had no right to the _labor_ 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 "_menstealers_," which word may be translated
+"_slavedealers_." 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
+_gentlemen of fortune and standing_ who employ them as _their_ agents?
+Why more than the _professors of religion_ 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 _principle_, in _Christian ethics_, between the
+despised slavedealer and the _Christian_ 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 _slavedealers_. It is then the
+_Christians_ and the _honorable men_ and _women_ of the South, who are
+the _main pillars_ of this grand temple built to Mammon and to Moloch.
+It is the _most enlightened_ in every country who are _most_ to blame
+when any public sin is supported by public opinion, hence Isaiah says,
+"_When_ the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount _Zion_ and on
+_Jerusalem_, (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 _after_ Judah's,
+and seventy years _after_ Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by
+Cyrus, king of Persia? Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, "judgment
+must _begin at the house of God_." Surely this would not be the case, if
+the _professors of religion_ were not _most worthy_ of blame.
+
+But it may be asked, why are _they_ 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, "_You only_ have I known of all the families of the earth:
+_therefore_ I will punish you for all your iniquities." Hear too the
+doctrine of our Lord on this important subject; "The servant who _knew_
+his Lord's will and _prepared not_ himself, neither did according to his
+will, shall be beaten with _many_ stripes": and why? "For unto
+whomsoever _much_ is given, _of him_ shall _much_ be required; and to
+whom men have committed _much_, of _him_ they will ask the _more_." Oh!
+then that the _Christians_ of the south would ponder these things in
+their hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which rest _upon
+them_ at this important crisis.
+
+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 _no_ excuse whatever to
+slavedealers. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal
+dispensation. Fifth, that _slavery never_ existed under the Jewish
+dispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed under
+the _protection of law_, and care taken not only to prevent all
+_involuntary_ servitude, but all _voluntary perpetual_ bondage. Sixth,
+that slavery in America reduces a _man_ to a _thing_, a "chattel
+personal," _robs him_ of _all_ his rights as a _human being_, fetters
+both his mind and body, and protects the _master_ in the most unnatural
+and unreasonable power, whilst it _throws him out_ 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.
+
+But perhaps you will be ready to query, why appeal to _women_ on this
+subject? _We_ do not make the laws which perpetuate slavery. _No_
+legislative power is vested in _us_; _we_ 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 _you are the wives and mothers,
+the sisters and daughters of those who do_; and if you really suppose
+_you_ 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 aright, we must understand what we are praying for; it
+is only then we can "pray with the understanding and the spirit also."
+
+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 _Bible_ 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! _'tis all one_," he replied, and out went
+the sacred volume, along with the rest. We thank him for the
+acknowledgment. Yes, "_it is all one_," for our books and papers are
+mostly commentaries on the Bible, and the Declaration. Read the _Bible
+_then, it contains the words of Jesus, and they are spirit and life.
+Judge for yourselves whether _he sanctioned_ such a system of oppression
+and crime.
+
+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 _sinful_, 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, "_What is that
+to thee, follow thou me_." 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.
+
+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 _sinful_, 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 _less_ culpable on this account, even when they do wrong
+things. Discountenance _all_ cruelty to them, all starvation, all
+corporal chastisement; these may brutalize and  _break_ their spirits,
+but will never bend them to willing, cheerful obedience. If possible,
+see that they are comfortably and _seasonably_ 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
+_slavery is a crime against God and man_, and that it is a great sin to
+keep _human beings_ 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, _slaveholders must not_
+blame them, for _they_ are doing the _very same thing_, 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.
+
+
+  "Will _you_ behold unheeding,
+  Life's holiest feelings crushed,
+  Where _woman's_ heart is bleeding,
+  Shall _woman's_ voice be hushed?"
+
+
+4. Act on this subject. Some of you _own_ slaves yourselves. If you
+believe slavery is _sinful_, 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, _ought to be improved_. So precious a
+talent as intellect, never was given to be wrapt in a napkin and buried
+in the earth. It is the _duty_ of all, as far as they can, to improve
+their own mental faculties, because we are commanded to love God with
+_all our minds_, as well as with all our hearts, and we commit a great
+sin, if we _forbid or prevent_ 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 _duty_ to learn,
+if it were only that they might read the Bible.
+
+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 _ought to be no barrier_ 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? "_They_ feared _God_, and did _not_
+as the King of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive."
+Did these _women_ do right in disobeying that monarch? "_Therefore_
+(says the sacred text,) _God dealt well_ 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 _Jews_) O king, that
+_we will not_ serve thy gods, nor worship the image which thou hast set
+up." Did these men _do right in disobeying the law_ 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 _knew that the writing was
+signed_, he went into his house, and his windows being _open_ 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 _break_ 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, "_commanded them not_ 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
+_resurrection_ of the Lord Jesus;" although _this_ 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 _you_ to
+answer, who now enjoy the benefits of their labors and sufferings, in
+that Gospel they dared to preach when positively commanded _not to teach
+any more_ in the name of Jesus; Acts iv.
+
+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. _Consequences_, my friends, belong no more to
+_you_, than they did to these apostles. Duty is ours and events are
+God's. If you think slavery is sinful, all _you_ 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 _manstealing_. Such an act will be
+_clear robbery_, 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."
+
+I know that this doctrine of obeying _God_, 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 _sin_. 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 _sin I will break it_; if it calls me to _suffer_, I will let it
+take its course _unresistingly_. The doctrine of blind obedience and
+unqualified submission to _any human_ power, whether civil or
+ecclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism, and ought to have no place
+among Republicans and Christians.
+
+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 _not_ excuse you or any one else for the neglect of
+_duty_. 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 _laws of our country or public opinion are
+against us_, 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 _speak the truth_; to tell the Jews, boldly and fearlessly,
+that _they_ were the _murderers_ 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 _speak_ the _truth_, to _break_ the unrighteous _laws_ 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 _done_ good and
+faithful servants, enter ye into the joy of your Lord."
+
+But you may say we are _women_, how can _our_ hearts endure persecution?
+And why not? Have not _women_ 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 _women_ 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 _woman_; 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 _woman!_ 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 _woman_. Jael the
+wife of Heber! Judges vi, 21. Who dared to _speak the truth_ 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 _woman_. 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 _woman_; Esther
+the Queen; yes, weak and trembling _woman_ was the instrument appointed
+by God, to reverse the bloody mandate of the eastern monarch, and save
+the _whole visible church_ from destruction. What human voice first
+proclaimed to Mary that she should be the mother of our Lord? It was a
+_woman!_ 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 _woman!_
+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
+_woman!_ Who ministered to the Son of God whilst on earth, a despised
+and persecuted Reformer, in the humble garb of a carpenter? They were
+_women!_ Who followed the rejected King of Israel, as his fainting
+footsteps trod the road to Calvary? "A great company of people and of
+_women_;" and it is remarkable that to _them alone_, 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 _woman_! the
+wife of Pilate. Although "_he knew_ that for envy the Jews had delivered
+Christ," yet _he_ consented to surrender the Son of God into the hands
+of a brutal soldiery, after having himself scourged his naked body. Had
+the _wife_ of Pilate sat upon that judgment seat, what would have been
+the result of the trial of this "just person?"
+
+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 _women_! To whom did he _first_ appear after his
+resurrection? It was to a _woman_! 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, _not_ 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?"
+_Women_ were among that holy company; Acts i, 14. And did _women_ 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 _women_ as well as men?
+Yes, my friends, "it sat upon _each one of them_;" Acts ii, 3. _women_
+as well as men were to be living stones in the temple of grace, and
+therefore _their_ heads were consecrated by the descent of the Holy
+Ghost as well as those of men. Were _women_ recognized as fellow
+laborers in the gospel field? They were! Paul says in his epistle to the
+Philippians, "help those _women_ who labored with me, in the gospel;"
+Phil. iv, 3.
+
+But this is not all. Roman _women_ were burnt at the stake, _their_
+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, _women_
+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 _them_ 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
+_woman's_, as well as man's? Yes, _women_ were accounted as sheep for
+the slaughter, and were cut down as the tender saplings of the wood.
+
+But time would fail me, to tell of all those hundreds and thousands of
+_women_, 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 _Pope_," 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 _even here_, (the warm blush
+of shame mantles my cheek as I write it,) _even here, woman_ was beaten
+and banished, imprisoned, and hung upon the gallows, a trophy to the
+Cross.
+
+And what, I would ask in conclusion, have _women_ 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 _woman_, Elizabeth Heyrick.
+Who labored assiduously to keep the sufferings of the slave continually
+before the British public? They were _women_. 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.
+
+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 _never_ 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 _religious
+duty_, 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 _they_ can do for
+you, _you_ must work out your own deliverance with fear and trembling,
+and with the direction and blessing of God, _you can do it_. 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 _you_ 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.
+
+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 _you_, as the wives and mothers, the daughters
+and sisters, of the South, to a sense of your duty as _women_, 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; _and will continue
+mightily to shake it_, 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
+_slavery_; 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
+_self-evident_ truth that _all men_ were created equal, and had an
+_unalienable right to liberty_.
+
+Well may the poet exclaim in bitter sarcasm,
+
+
+  "The fustian flag that proudly waves
+  In solemn mockery _o'er a land of slaves_."
+
+
+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 _wicked laws_ which require _woman to enslave, to
+degrade and to brutalize woman?_ 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 _speak the truth_
+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 _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._" Listen, too, to her magnanimous
+reply to this powerful appeal; "_I will go_ in unto the king, which is
+not according to law, and if I perish. I perish." Yes! if there were but
+_one_ Esther at the South, she _might_ 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 _woman_ 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 _without wages;_ no longer to make their lives bitter in hard
+bondage; no longer to reduce _American citizens_ to the abject condition
+of _slaves_, of "chattels personal;" no longer to barter the _image of
+God_ in human shambles for corruptible things such as silver and gold.
+
+The _women of the South can overthrow_ 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 _will bend under moral suasion_. There is a swift witness
+for truth in his bosom, which _will respond to truth_ 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 _women_, and _they_ will be the most
+likely to introduce it there in the best possible manner, as a matter of
+_morals_ and _religion_, 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 _Christian_ ground, and fight against
+it with Christian weapons, whilst your feet are shod with the
+preparation of the gospel of peace. And _you are now_ 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.
+
+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 _now_ 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 _not_
+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 _none shall make them afraid_; for
+the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it." The _slave_ never can do
+this as long as he is a _slave_; whilst he is a "chattel personal" he
+can own _no_ property; but the time _is to come_ when _every_ man is to
+sit under _his own_ vine and _his own_ 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 _knowledge_ shall be increased."
+Slavery is an insurmountable barrier to the increase of knowledge in
+every community where it exists; _slavery, then, must be abolished
+before_ this prediction can be fulfiled. The last chord I shall touch,
+will be this, "They shall _not_ hurt nor destroy in all my holy
+mountain."
+
+_Slavery, then, must be overthrown before_ 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 _man_; it is through _his_
+instrumentality that the great and glorious work of reforming the world
+is to be done. And see you not how the mighty engine of _moral power_ 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.
+
+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,
+_not_ 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 _that putrefied body_
+into life; but "Jesus said, take _ye_ away the stone;" and when _they_
+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 _they_ ever be raised politically
+and intellectually, they have been dead four hundred years? But _we_
+have _nothing_ to do with _how_ this is to be done; _our business_ is to
+take away the stone which has covered up the dead body of our brother,
+to expose the putrid carcass, to show _how_ 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 _how_ that dead body has been
+bound, _how_ that face has been wrapped in the _napkin of prejudice_;
+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 _will_ 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.
+
+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 _you_ 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 _I_ 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 _you_ 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
+_entirely pacific_, and their efforts _only moral_, 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
+_never_ 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 _prove_ them to be false.
+Their violent expressions of horror at such accounts being believed,
+_may_ deceive some, but they cannot deceive _me_, for I lived too long
+in the midst of slavery, not to know what slavery is. When _I_ speak of
+this system, "I speak that I do know," and I am not at all afraid to
+assert, that Anti-Slavery publications have _not_ overdrawn the
+monstrous features of slavery at all. And many a Southerner _knows_ 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 _depth of
+degradation_ that word involves, they have no conception; if they had,
+_they would never cease_ their efforts until so _horrible_ 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 _every_ 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.
+
+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 _approve of slavery?_ ask them on _Northern_
+ground, where they will speak the truth, and I doubt not _every man_ of
+them will tell you, _no!_ Why then, I ask, did _they_ give their votes
+to enlarge the mouth of that grave which has already destroyed its tens
+of thousands? All our enemies tell _us_ 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 _they_ lend you their help? I will tell
+you, "they love _the praise of men more_ 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 _chief rulers_ in the days
+of our Saviour, though many believed on him, yet they did _not_ confess
+him, lest they should _be put out of the synagogue_; 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 _their hearts_; I appeal to public opinion
+ten years from now. Slavery then is a national sin.
+
+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 _their_ fortunes out of the
+_produce of slave labor_; 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 _might_ flow from
+emancipation, she is determined to resist all efforts at emancipation
+without expatriation. It is not because _she approves of slavery_, or
+believes it to be "the corner stone of our republic," for she is as much
+_anti-slavery_ as we are; but amalgamation is too horrible to think of.
+Now I would ask _you_, is it right, is it generous, to refuse the
+colored people in this country the advantages of education and the
+privilege, or rather the _right_, 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 themselves_? Oh! that _such_
+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 _as bound with them_." I will leave you to judge whether
+the fear of amalgamation ought to induce men to oppose anti-slavery
+efforts, when _they_ believe _slavery_ to be _sinful_. Prejudice against
+color, is the most powerful enemy we have to fight with at the North.
+
+You need not be surprised, then, at all, at what is said _against_
+Abolitionists by the North, for they are wielding a two-edged sword,
+which even here, cuts through the _cords of caste_, on the one side, and
+the _bonds of interest_ 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 _same_ slanders were propogated against them, which are _now_
+circulated against Abolitionists. Although it was well known that Fox
+was the founder of a religious sect which repudiated _all_ war, and
+_all_ violence, yet _even he_ 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 _they were not_ 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 _enlightened_ population _never_ can be a
+_slave_ 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
+_faithful_ testimony against the sin of slavery was cut off from
+religious fellowship with that society. That Quaker was a _woman_. 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."
+
+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
+_against_ slavery, they have for fifty-two years positively forbidden
+their members to hold slaves.
+
+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 _peace men_ by _never resisting_ 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 _slaveholders_ 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 _must_ 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.
+
+Abolitionists have been accused of abusing their Southern brethren. Did
+the prophet Isaiah _abuse_ 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 _ashamed_ of the oaks they had
+desired, and _confounded_ for the garden they had chosen? Did John the
+Baptist _abuse_ the Jews when he called them "_a generation of vipers_,"
+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 now accuse the prophets and
+apostles of _abuse_, 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?
+
+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 _gentlemen_ and _ladies_ 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 _ashamed of slavery_ even to speak of it;
+the language of their hearts was, "tell it _not_ in Gath, publish it
+_not_ 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 _realities_ no longer exist.
+
+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. _We know_ that the papers of which the
+Charleston mail was robbed, were _not_ insurrectionary, and that they
+were _not_ sent to the colored people as was reported. _We know_ that
+Amos Dresser was _no insurrectionist_ 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 _slaveholders_. 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 _truth's sake, he
+suffered_, as much as did the Apostle Paul. Are Nelson, and Garrett, and
+Williams, and other Abolitionists who have recently been banished from
+Missouri, insurrectionists? _We know_ they are _not_, whatever
+slaveholders may choose to call them. The spirit which now asperses the
+character of the Abolitionists, is the _very same_ 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.
+_False_ witnesses must appear against Abolitionists before they can be
+condemned.
+
+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? _They_ came with _carnal
+weapons_ to engage in _bloody_ 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, _not_ 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
+_Thompson_ 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 _foreign emissary_ in the Roman colony
+of Philippi, as George Thompson was in America, and it was because he
+was a _Jew_, and taught customs it was not lawful for them to receive or
+observe, being Romans, that the Apostle was thus treated.
+
+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 _Britons_ on _American Slavery_, to the _subjects_ of a
+_King_, on the abject condition of the _slaves of a Republic_. 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?
+
+What can I say more, my friends, to induce _you_ 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. _Slavery_ may produce these horrible scenes if it is
+continued five years longer, but Emancipation _never will_.
+
+I can prove the _safety_ 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
+_this time_ that all those dreadful scenes of cruelty occurred, which we
+so often _unjustly_ hear spoken of, as the effects of Abolition. They
+were occasioned _not_ by Emancipation, but by the base attempt to fasten
+the chains of slavery on the limbs of liberated slaves.
+
+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, _they preferred immediate emancipation_, 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 _safest_ and
+the best plan.
+
+And why not try it in the Southern States, if it _never_ has occasioned
+rebellion; if _not a drop of blood_ 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 _every
+thing_ from the continuance of slavery.
+
+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 _Christian women_>. 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, "_God only_ 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 _chosen the weak things of the world_, 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,
+
+Your sympathizing Friend,
+
+ANGELINA E. GRIMKE.
+
+Published by the American Anti-Slavery Society, corner of Spruce and
+Nassau Streets.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+VOL. I. SEPTEMBER, 1836.    No. 2.
+
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+
+
+APPEAL
+
+TO THE
+
+CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH,
+
+
+BY A.E. GRIMKE REVISED AND CORRECTED.
+
+
+    "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 _if I perish, I perish_."
+
+    Esther IV. 13-16.
+
+
+RESPECTED FRIENDS,
+
+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 _now_, 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.
+
+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 _no_ personal interest whatever in _me_. But I feel an interest
+in _you_, 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 _you_, 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 _do feel_ and _do pray_ 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
+_not_ 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 _truths in
+love_, and remember Solomon says, "faithful are the _wounds_ of a
+friend." I do not believe the time has yet come when _Christian women_
+"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 _you_.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+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._
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+To all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers, (for you
+are all _one_ 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 _supporters_ of the slave
+system," says Jonathan Dymond in his admirable work on the Principles of
+Morality, "will _hereafter_ be regarded with the _same_ public feeling,
+as he who was an advocate for the slave trade _now_ is." It will be, and
+that very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged by all the
+virtuous and the candid, that in _principle_ 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 _all_ men are created equal, and that they have
+certain _inalienable_ rights among which are life, _liberty_, and the
+pursuit of happiness." It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a man
+can be legally born a slave under _our free Republican_ 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 _all_ men, every where and
+of every color are born equal, and have an _inalienable right to
+liberty_, then it is equally true that _no_ man can be born a slave, and
+no man can ever _rightfully_ be reduced to _involuntary_ bondage and
+held as a slave, however fair may be the claim of his master or mistress
+through wills and title-deeds.
+
+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 _this test_ 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 _no additional_ 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
+_irrational_ beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion
+over _all of them_ is granted, yet _man_ is _never_ vested with this
+dominion _over his fellow man_; he was never told that any of the human
+species were put _under his feet_; it was only _all things_, and man,
+who was created in the image of his Maker, _never_ can properly be
+termed a _thing_, though the laws of Slave States do call him "a chattel
+personal;" _Man_ then, I assert _never_ was put _under the feet of man_,
+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.
+
+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 _not_ tell us what
+_ought to be_, 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 _not cover
+one sin_ in the awful day of account. Hear what our Saviour says on this
+subject; "it must needs be that offences come, but _woe unto that man
+through whom they come_"--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, _ye_ have taken, and by _wicked_ hands have
+crucified and slain." Other striking instances might be adduced, but
+these will suffice.
+
+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 _mine_ heir." From this it appears that one of his _servants_ 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 _his_ 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, _every_ 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 _servants_ 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 _rights of servants_ 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 _household_ 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;
+_Are you_ careful to have _all_ that are born in your house or bought
+with money of any stranger, baptized? Are _you_ as faithful as Abraham
+to command _your household_ to _keep the way of the Lord?_ I leave it to
+your own consciences to decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like
+American Slavery?
+
+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 _servitude_ 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.
+
+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 _he_ received the purchase money
+_himself_. Ex. xxi, 2.
+
+2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e., his _daughters_,
+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 _father_ received
+the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were
+in the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives, not_ as slaves. Ex. xxi,
+7-11.
+
+3. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold for
+the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.
+
+4. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.
+
+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].
+Lev. xxv, 39, 40.
+
+[Footnote 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 _not_ in the original
+Hebrew; have been introduced by the translators, and entirely destroy
+the true sense of the passage.]
+
+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 _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred,
+and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.
+
+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 _they had sold themselves_ in the dark hour of adversity? No! Were
+they born in slavery? No! No! Not according to _Jewish Law_, for the
+servants who were born in servitude among them, were born of parents who
+had _sold themselves_: 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, _their_ fathers
+_never_ have received the poor compensation of silver or gold for the
+tears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless bondage of
+_their_ 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 _fathers of the South ever sell their
+daughters?_ My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the awful
+affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell their
+daughters, _not_ 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 _not_ become slaves in any of the six different ways in which
+Hebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters
+_cannot_ according to _Jewish law_ substantiate their claim to the men,
+women, or children they now hold in bondage.
+
+But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced to
+servitude; it was this, he might be _stolen_ 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 _that thief shall die_; and thou shalt put away evil
+from among you." Deut. xxiv, 7. As I have tried American Slavery by
+_legal_ Hebrew servitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that
+Jewish law cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by
+_illegal_ 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 _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 _to Hebrew Law they
+have been stolen._
+
+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.
+
+Bondmen and bondmaids might be bought of the heathen round about them.
+Lev. xxv, 44.
+
+I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of Hebrew
+masters to their _heathen_ servants. Were the southern slaves bought
+from the heathen? No! For surely, no one will _now_ 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 _not_ 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?
+
+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 _both_ were 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:
+
+1. Thou shalt _not_ rule over him with _rigor_, but shalt fear thy God.
+
+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 _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, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv, 13, 14.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _for ever_. Ex. xxi, 5, 6.
+
+6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that
+it perish, he shall let him go _free_ 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 _free_ for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.
+
+7. On the Sabbath, rest was secured to servants by the fourth
+commandment. Ex. xx, 10.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+From these laws we learn, that one class of Hebrew men servants were
+bound to serve their masters _only six_ 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 _there_ his ear was
+_publicly_ 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: _for ever_, i.e., during his life, for Jewish
+Rabbins, who must have understood Jewish _slavery_ (as it is called),
+"affirm that servants were set free at the death of their masters, and
+did _not_ descend to their heirs;" or that he was to serve him until the
+year of Jubilee, when _all_ 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 _free_, 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."
+
+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
+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 _freemen_ 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 _he_ 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 _his own_, and therefore he was to be remunerated
+for the loss of it. But _not_ so with the _servant_, whose time was, as
+it were, _the money of his master_, 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 _not_ to be
+paid for, because it was _not his own_, but his master's, who had
+already paid him for it. The loss of his time was the _master's loss_,
+and _not_ the servant's. This explanation is confirmed by the fact, that
+the Hebrew word translated continue, means "to stand still;" _i.e._, to
+be unable to go out about his master's work.
+
+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 _died_ after a day or two; the text
+does not say so, and I contend that he _got well_ 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 _four_ different
+ways.--(_Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws_.)
+
+But I pass on now to the consideration of how the _female_ Jewish
+servants were protected by _law_.
+
+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.
+
+2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after
+the manner of daughters.
+
+3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of
+marriage, shall he not diminish.
+
+4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out _free_
+without money.
+
+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 _always_ 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 _go out free_ without money."
+Thus were the _rights of female servants carefully secured by law_ under
+the Jewish Dispensation; and now I would ask, are the rights of female
+slaves at the South thus secured? Are _they_ sold only as wives and
+daughters-in-law, and when not treated as such, are they allowed to _go
+out free?_ No! They have _all_ not only been illegally obtained as
+servants according to Hebrew law, but they are also illegally _held_ in
+bondage. Masters at the South and West have all forfeited their claims,
+(_if they ever had any,_) to their female slaves.
+
+We come now to examine the case of those servants who were "of the
+heathen round about;" Were _they_ 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 _alien
+born_ slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew Church by circumcision,
+_there is no doubt_ but that it applied to _all_ 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.
+
+There are, however, two other laws which I have not yet noticed. The one
+effectually prevented _all involuntary_ servitude, and the other
+completely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were
+equally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew.
+
+1. "Thou shalt _not_ 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 _not_ oppress him." Deut. xxiii, 15, 16.
+
+2. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim _Liberty_
+throughout _all_ the land, unto _all_ the inhabitants thereof; it shall
+be a jubilee unto you." Lev. xxv, 10.
+
+Here, then, we see that by this first law, the _door of Freedom was
+opened wide to every servant who_ had any cause whatever for complaint;
+if he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him,
+and _no man_ had a right to deliver him back to him again, and not only
+so, but the absconded servant was to _choose_ 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 _by law_ 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 _human_ law, under the _Christian
+Dispensation_, in the _nineteenth century we_ are commanded to do, what
+_God_ more than _three thousand_ years ago, under the _Mosaic
+Dispensation_, _positively commanded_ the Jews _not_ to do. In the wide
+domain even of our free states, there is not _one_ 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 _man_, by the strong
+arm of the law; no! _not one_. 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, _consenting_ unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the
+raiment of them that slew him. I know not; but one thing I do know, the
+_guilt of the North_ 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, "_Who_ hath required _this_ at thy hand?" It will be found _no_
+excuse then that the Constitution of our country required that _persons
+bound to service_ escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no
+more excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the
+forbidden fruit. _He was condemned and punished because_ he hearkened to
+the voice of _his wife_, rather than to the command of his Maker; and
+_we_ shall assuredly be condemned and punished for obeying _Man_ rather
+than _God_, if we do not speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for
+repentance. Yea, are we not receiving chastisement even _now_?
+
+But by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is
+disclosed. If the first effectually prevented _all involuntary
+servitude_, the last absolutely forbade even _voluntary servitude being
+perpetual_. On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the
+Jubilee trumpet was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and _Liberty_
+was proclaimed to _all_ the inhabitants thereof. I will not say that the
+servants' _chains_ fell off and their _manacles_ were burst, for there
+is no evidence that Jewish servants _ever_ 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 _heathen_ 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 _perpetual servitude_ existing among
+them.
+
+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
+_slavery_ when speaking of Jewish servitude; and simply for this reason,
+that _no such thing_ existed among that people; the word translated
+servant does _not_ mean _slave_, it is the same that is applied to
+Abraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets generally. _Slavery_ then
+_never_ 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 "_God sanctioned, yea commanded
+slavery_ 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 _ever_ sanctioned such a system
+of cruelty and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him.
+
+We have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard to
+servants was designed to _protect them_ as _men and women_, to secure to
+them their _rights_ as _human beings_, 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.
+
+1. _Slavery_ is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the
+slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest
+posterity.
+
+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].
+
+[Footnote 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, _one quart_ of
+corn per day, or _one peck_ per week, or _one bushel_ 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 _always_ be
+defeated." ED.]
+
+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.
+
+4. Slaves can make no contracts and have no _legal_ right to any
+property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings and the legacies
+of friends belong in point of law to their masters.
+
+5. Neither a slave nor a free colored person can be a witness against
+any _white_, 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 _slave_; but they may give testimony
+_against a fellow slave_, or free colored man, even in cases affecting
+life, if the _master_ is to reap the advantage of it.
+
+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.
+
+7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under _any_
+circumstances, _his_ only safety consists in the fact that his _owner_
+may bring suit and recover the price of his body, in case his life is
+taken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor.
+
+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.
+
+9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations.
+
+10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the
+master is willing to enfranchise them.
+
+11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious
+instruction and consolation.
+
+12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of
+the lowest ignorance.
+
+13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right.
+What is a trifling fault in the _white_ man, is considered highly
+criminal in the _slave_; the same offences which cost a white man a few
+dollars only, are punished in the negro with death.
+
+14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color[A].
+
+[Footnote A: See Mrs. Child's Appeal, Chap. II.]
+
+Shall I ask you now my friends, to draw the _parallel_ between Jewish
+_servitude_ and American _slavery_? No! For there is _no likeness_ in
+the two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The laws of
+Moses _protected servants_ in their _rights_ as _men and women_, guarded
+them from oppression and defended them from wrong. The Code Noir of the
+South _robs the slave of all his rights_ as a _man_, reduces him to a
+chattel personal, and defends the _master_ 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
+_thing_ before we can claim the right to set our feet upon his neck,
+because it was only _all things_ which were originally _put under the
+feet of man_ by the Almighty and Beneficent Father of all, who has
+declared himself to be _no respecter_ of persons, whether red, white or
+black.
+
+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 _slavery_, if that had existed
+among them. But did not Jesus condemn slavery? Let us examine some of
+his precepts. "_Whatsoever_ ye would that men should do to you, do _ye
+even so to them_." Let every slaveholder apply these queries to his own
+heart; Am _I_ willing to be a slave--Am _I_ willing to see my wife the
+slave of another--Am _I_ 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 _not_ wish to be done to me or any relative I have;
+and thus have I broken this golden rule which was given _me_ to walk by.
+
+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 _my little
+child_ to slavery? You know that _if it is brought up a slave_ 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--_not by
+nature_--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 "_God never made a slave_," he
+made man upright; his back was _not_ made to carry burdens, nor his neck
+to wear a yoke, and the _man_ must be crushed within him, before _his_
+back can be _fitted_ to the burden of perpetual slavery; and that his
+back is _not_ 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 _they_ were all placed _under the feet of man_, 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 _not so with man_, intellectual, immortal man!
+I appeal to you, my friends, as mothers; Are you willing to enslave
+_your_ children? You start back with horror and indignation at such a
+question. But why, if slavery is _no wrong_ 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 _wanting_? Try yourselves by another of the Divine
+precepts, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Can we love a man
+_as_ we love _ourselves 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 _not_ to be ministered unto, but to
+minister." Can you for a moment imagine the meek and lowly, and
+compassionate Saviour, _a slaveholder_? Do you not shudder at this
+thought as much as at that of his being _a warrior_? But why, if slavery
+is not sinful?
+
+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 _bound to protect_ the runaway; _he had no
+right_ 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, _not_ now as a
+_servant_, but _above_ 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 _me_ therefore as a partner, _receive him as myself_." 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
+_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. And what is
+still more surprising, if he was a _slave_, is, that "forasmuch as he
+had not to pay, his lord commanded _him_ 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 _slave_ and his family to pay himself a debt due
+to him from a _slave_? What would he gain by it when the slave is
+himself his _property_, and his wife and children also? Onesimus could
+not, then, have been a _slave_, 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 _nothing from a servant_, though he be
+lord of all. But is under _tutors_ and governors until the time
+appointed of the father." From this it appears, that the means of
+_instruction_ were provided for _servants_ 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 _your
+slaves_? are their minds enlightened, and they gradually prepared to
+rise from the grade of menials into that of _free_, independent members
+of the state? Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience,
+answer these questions.
+
+If this apostle sanctioned _slavery_, 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) _forbearing threatening_; knowing that your master also is in
+heaven, neither is _there respect of persons with him_." And in
+Colossians, "Masters give unto your servants that which is _just and
+equal_, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." Let slaveholders
+only _obey_ these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery would
+soon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to _threaten_ 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, "_no striker_." Let
+masters give unto their servants that which is _just_ and _equal_, and
+all that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. Yes,
+and if they once felt they had no right to the _labor_ 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 "_menstealers_," which word may be translated
+"_slavedealers_." 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
+_gentlemen of fortune and standing_ who employ them as _their_ agents?
+Why more than the _professors of religion_ 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 _principle_, in _Christian ethics_, between the
+despised slavedealer and the _Christian_ 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 _slavedealers_. It is then the
+_Christians_ and the _honorable men_ and _women_ of the South, who are
+the _main pillars_ of this grand temple built to Mammon and to Moloch.
+It is the _most enlightened_, in every country who are _most_ to blame
+when any public sin is supported by public opinion, hence Isaiah says,
+"_When_ the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount _Zion_ and on
+_Jerusalem_, (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 _after_ Judah's,
+and 185 years, _after_ Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by
+Cyrus, king of Persia? Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, "judgment
+must _begin at the house of God_." Surely this would not be the case, if
+the _professors of religion_ were not _most worthy_ of blame.
+
+But it may be asked, why are _they_ 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, "_You only_ have I known of all the families of the earth:
+_therefore_ I will punish _you_ for all your iniquities." Hear too the
+doctrine of our Lord on this important subject: "The servant who _knew_
+his Lord's will and _prepared not_ himself, neither did according to his
+will, shall be beaten with _many stripes_:" and why? "For unto
+whomsoever _much_ is given, _of him_ shall _much_ be required; and to
+whom men have committed _much_, of _him_ they will ask the _more_." Oh!
+then that the _Christians_ of the south would ponder these things in
+their hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which rest _upon
+them_ at this important crisis.
+
+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 _no_ excuse whatever to
+slaveholders. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal
+dispensation. Fifth, that _slavery never_ existed under the Jewish
+dispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed under
+the _protection of law_, and care taken not only to prevent all
+_involuntary_ servitude, but all _voluntary perpetual_ bondage. Sixth,
+that slavery in America reduces a _man_ to a _thing_, a "chattel
+personal," _robs him_ of _all_ his rights as a _human being_, fetters
+both his mind and body, and protects the _master_ in the most unnatural
+and unreasonable power, whilst it _throws him out_ 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.
+
+But perhaps you will be ready to query, why appeal to _women_ on this
+subject? _We_ do not make the laws which perpetuate slavery. _No_
+legislative power is vested in _us; we_ 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 _you are the wives and mothers, the
+sisters and daughters of those who do_; and if you really suppose _you_
+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."
+
+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 _Bible_ 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. _"Oh! 'tis all one,"_ he replied, and out went
+the sacred volume, along with the rest. We thank him for the
+acknowledgment. _Yes, "it is all one,"_ for our books and papers are
+mostly commentaries on the Bible, and the Declaration. Read the _Bible_
+then; it contains the words of Jesus, and they are spirit and life.
+Judge for yourselves whether _he sanctioned_ such a system of oppression
+and crime.
+
+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 _sinful_, 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, _"What is that
+to thee, follow thou me."_ 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.
+
+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 _sinful_, 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 _less_ culpable on this account, even when they do wrong
+things. Discountenance _all_ cruelty to them, all starvation, all
+corporal chastisement; these may brutalize and _break_ their spirits,
+but will never bend them to willing, cheerful obedience. If possible,
+see that they are comfortably and _seasonably_ 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
+_slavery is a crime against God and man_, and that it is a great sin to
+keep _human beings_ 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, _slaveholders must not_
+blame them, for _they_ are doing the _very same thing_, 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.
+
+
+  "Will _you_ behold unheeding,
+    Life's holiest feelings crushed,
+  Where _woman's_ heart is bleeding,
+    Shall _woman's_ voice be hushed?"
+
+
+4. Act on this subject. Some of you _own_ slaves yourselves. If you
+believe slavery is _sinful_, 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 _ought to be improved_. So precious a
+talent as intellect, never was given to be wrapt in a napkin and buried
+in the earth. It is the _duty_ of all, as far as they can, to improve
+their own mental faculties, because we are commanded to love God with
+_all our minds_, as well as with all our hearts, and we commit a great
+sin, if we _forbid or prevent_ 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 _duty_ to learn,
+if it were only that they might read the Bible.
+
+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 _ought to be no barrier_ 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? "_They_ feared _God_, and did _not_
+as the King of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive."
+And be it remembered, that it was through _their_ faithfulness that
+Moses was preserved. This great and immediate emancipator was indebted
+to a _woman_ for his spared life, and he became a blessing to the whole
+Jewish nation. Did these _women_ do right in disobeying that monarch?
+"_Therefore_ (says the sacred text,) _God dealt well_ 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 _Jews_) O
+king, that _we will not_ serve thy gods, nor worship the image which
+thou hast set up." Did these men _do right in disobeying the law_ 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 _knew
+that the writing was signed_, he went into his house, and his windows
+being _open_ 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 _break_ 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,
+"_commanded them not_ 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 _resurrection_ of the Lord Jesus;" although
+_this_ 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 _you_ to answer, who now enjoy the benefits of their labors and
+sufferings, in that Gospel they dared to preach when positively
+commanded _not to teach any more_ in the name of Jesus; Acts iv.
+
+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. _Consequences_, my friends, belong no more to
+_you_, than they did to these apostles. Duty is ours and events are
+God's. If you think slavery is sinful, all _you_ 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 _manstealing_. Such an act will be
+_clear robbery_, 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."
+
+I know that this doctrine of obeying _God_, 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 _sin_. 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 _sin I will break it_; if it calls me to _suffer_, I will
+let it take its course _unresistingly_. The doctrine of blind obedience
+and unqualified submission to _any human_ power, whether civil or
+ecclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism, and ought to have no place
+among Republicans and Christians.
+
+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 _not_ excuse you or any one else for the neglect of
+_duty_. 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 _laws of our country or public opinion are
+against us_, 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 _speak the truth_; to tell the Jews, boldly and fearlessly,
+that _they_ were the _murderers_ 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 _speak_ the _truth_, to _break_ the unrighteous _laws_ 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 _done_ good and
+faithful servants, enter ye into the joy of your Lord."
+
+But you may say we are _women_, how can _our_ hearts endure persecution?
+And why not? Have not _women_ 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 _women_ 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 _woman_; 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 _woman_! 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 _woman_. Jael the
+wife of Heber! Judges vi, 21. Who dared to _speak the truth_ 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 _woman_. 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 _woman_; Esther
+the Queen; yes, weak and trembling _woman_ was the instrument appointed
+by God, to reverse the bloody mandate of the eastern monarch, and save
+the _whole visible church_ from destruction. What human voice first
+proclaimed to Mary that she should be the mother of our Lord? It was a
+_woman_! 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 _woman_!
+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
+_woman_! Who ministered to the Son of God whilst on earth, a despised
+and persecuted Reformer, in the humble garb of a carpenter? They were
+_women_! Who followed the rejected King of Israel, as his fainting
+footsteps trod the road to Calvary? "A great company of people and of
+_women_;" and it is remarkable that to _them alone_, 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 _woman_! the
+wife of Pilate. Although "_he knew_ that for envy the Jews had delivered
+Christ," yet _he_ consented to surrender the Son of God into the hands
+of a brutal soldiery, after having himself scourged his naked body. Had
+the _wife_ of Pilate sat upon that judgment seat, what would have been
+the result of the trial of this "just person?"
+
+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 _women_! To whom did he _first_ appear after his
+resurrection? It was to a _woman_! 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, _not_ 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?"
+_Women_ were among that holy company; Acts i, 14. And did _women_ 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 _women_ as well as men?
+Yes, my friends, "it sat upon _each one of them_;" Acts ii, 3. _Women_
+as well as men were to be living stones in the temple of grace, and
+therefore _their_ heads were consecrated by the descent of the Holy
+Ghost as well as those of men. Were _women_ recognized as fellow
+laborers in the gospel field? They were! Paul says in his epistle to the
+Philippians, "help those _women_ who labored with me, in the gospel;"
+Phil. iv, 3.
+
+But this is not all. Roman _women_ were burnt at the stake, _their_
+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, _women_
+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 _them_ 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
+_woman's_, as well as man's? Yes, _women_ were accounted as sheep for
+the slaughter, and were cut down as the tender saplings of the wood.
+
+But time would fail me, to tell of all those hundreds and thousands of
+_women_, 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 _Pope_," 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 _even here_, (the warm blush
+of shame mantles my cheek as I write it,) _even here, woman_ was beaten
+and banished, imprisoned, and hung upon the gallows, a trophy to the
+Cross. And what, I would ask in conclusion, have _women_ 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 _woman_, Elizabeth
+Heyrick. Who labored assiduously to keep the sufferings of the slave
+continually before the British public? They were _women_. 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.
+
+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 _never_ 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 _religious
+duty_, 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 _they_ can do for
+you, _you_ must work out your own deliverance with fear and trembling,
+and with the direction and blessing of God, _you can do it_. 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 _you_ 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.
+
+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 _you_, as the wives and mothers, the daughters
+and sisters, of the South, to a sense of your duty as _women_, 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; _and will continue
+mightily to shake it_, 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
+_slavery_; 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
+_self-evident_ truth that _all men_ were created equal, and had an
+_unalienable right to liberty_.
+
+Well may the poet exclaim in bitter sarcasm,
+
+
+  "The fustian flag that proudly waves
+  In solemn mockery o'er _a land of slaves_."
+
+
+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 _wicked laws_ which require _woman to enslave, to
+degrade and to brutalize woman_? 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 _speak the truth_
+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 _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_." Listen, too, to her magnanimous
+reply to this powerful appeal; "_I will_ go in unto the king, which is
+_not_ according to law, and if I perish, I perish." Yes! if there were
+but _one_ Esther at the South, she _might_ 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 _woman_ 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 _without wages_; no longer to make their lives bitter in hard
+bondage; no longer to reduce _American citizens_ to the abject condition
+of _slaves_, of "chattels personal;" no longer to barter the _image of
+God_ in human shambles for corruptible things such as silver and gold.
+
+The _women of the South can overthrow_ 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 _will bend under moral suasion_. There is a swift witness
+for truth in his bosom, which _will respond to truth_ 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 _women_, and _they_ will be the most
+likely to introduce it there in the best possible manner, as a matter of
+_morals_ and _religion_, 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 _Christian_ ground, and fight against
+it with Christian weapons, whilst your feet are shod with the
+preparation of the gospel of peace. And _you are now_ 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."
+
+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 _now_ 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 _not_
+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 _none shall make them afraid_; for
+the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it." The _slave_ never can do
+this as long as he is a _slave_; whilst he is a "chattel personal" he
+can own _no_ property; but the time _is to come_ when _every_ man is to
+sit under _his own_ vine and _his own_ 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 _knowledge_ shall be increased."
+Slavery is an insurmountable barrier to the increase of knowledge in
+every community where it exists; _slavery, then, must be abolished
+before_ this prediction can be fulfilled. The last chord I shall touch,
+will be this, "They shall _not_ hurt nor destroy in all my holy
+mountain."
+
+_Slavery, then, must be overthrown before_ 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 _woman_; it is through _their_
+instrumentality that the great and glorious work of reforming the world
+is to be done. And see you not how the mighty engine of _moral power_ 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.
+
+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,
+_not_ 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 _that putrified body_
+into life; but "Jesus said, take _ye_ away the stone;" and when _they_
+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 _they_ ever be raised politically
+and intellectually, they have been dead four hundred years? But _we_
+have _nothing_ to do with _how_ this is to be done; _our business_ is to
+take away the stone which has covered up the dead body of our brother,
+to expose the putrid carcass, to show _how_ 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 _how_ that dead body has been
+bound, _how_ that face has been wrapped in the _napkin of prejudice_;
+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 _will_ 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.
+
+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 _you_ 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 _I_ 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 _you_ 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
+_entirely pacific,_ and their efforts _only moral,_ 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
+_never_ 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 _prove_ them to be false.
+Their violent expressions of horror at such accounts being believed,
+_may_ deceive some, but they cannot deceive _me,_ 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 _I_ speak of this system, "I speak that I do know," and I
+am not afraid to assert, that Anti-Slavery publications have _not_
+overdrawn the monstrous features of slavery at all. And many a
+Southerner _knows_ 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 _depth of degradation_ that word involves, they have no
+conception; if they had, _they would never cease_ their efforts until so
+_horrible_ 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 _every_ 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.
+
+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 _approve of slavery?_ ask them on
+_Northern_ ground, where they will speak the truth, and I doubt not
+_every man_ of them will tell you, _no_! Why then, I ask, did _they_
+give their votes to enlarge the mouth of that grave which has already
+destroyed its tens of thousands! All our enemies tell _us_ 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 _they_ lend you their
+help? I will tell you, "they love _the praise of men more_ 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 _chief
+rulers_ in the days of our Saviour, though _many_ believed on him, yet
+they did _not_ confess him, lest they should _be put out of the
+synagogue_; 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 _their hearts_; I appeal to public opinion ten years from now.
+Slavery then is a national sin.
+
+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 _their_ fortunes out of the
+_produce of slave labor_; 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 _might_ flow from
+emancipation, she is determined to resist all efforts at emancipation
+without expatriation. It is not because she _approves of slavery_, or
+believes it to be "the corner stone of our republic," for she is as much
+_anti-slavery_ as we are; but amalgamation is too horrible to think of.
+Now I would ask _you_, is it right, is it generous, to refuse the
+colored people in this country the advantages of education and the
+privilege, or rather the _right_, 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 _themselves_? Oh! that _such_
+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 _as bound with them_." I will leave you to judge whether
+the fear of amalgamation ought to induce men to oppose anti-slavery
+efforts, when _they_ believe _slavery_ to be _sinful_. Prejudice against
+color, is the most powerful enemy we have to fight with at the North.
+
+You need not be surprised, then, at all, at what is said _against_
+Abolitionists by the North, for they are wielding a two-edged sword,
+which even here, cuts through the _cords of caste_, on the one side, and
+the _bonds of interest_ 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 _same_ slanders were propogated against them, which are _now_
+circulated against Abolitionists. Although it was well known that Fox
+was the founder of a religious sect which repudiated _all_ war, and
+_all_ violence, yet _even he_ 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 _they were not_ 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 _enlightened_ population _never_ can be a
+_slave_ 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
+_faithful_ testimony against the sin of slavery was cut off from
+religious fellowship with that society. That Quaker was a _woman_. 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."
+
+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
+_against_ slavery, they have for sixty-two years positively forbidden
+their members to hold slaves.
+
+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 _peace men_ by _never resisting_ 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 _slaveholders_ 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 _must_ 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.
+
+Abolitionists have been accused of abusing their Southern brethren. Did
+the prophet Isaiah _abuse_ 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 _ashamed_ of the oaks they had
+desired, and _confounded_ for the garden they had chosen? Did John the
+Baptist _abuse_ the Jews when he called them "_a generation of vipers_,"
+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 _now_ accuse the prophets and
+apostles of _abuse_, 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?
+
+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 _gentlemen_ and _ladies_ 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 _ashamed of slavery_ even to speak of it;
+the language of their hearts was, "tell it _not_ in Gath, publish it
+_not_ 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 _realities_ no longer exist.
+
+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. _We know_ that the papers of which the
+Charleston mail was robbed, were _not_ insurrectionary, and that they
+were _not_ sent to the colored people as was reported. _We know_ that
+Amos Dresser was _no insurrectionist_ 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 _slaveholders_. 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 _truth's sake, he
+suffered_, as much as did the Apostle Paul. Are Nelson, and Garrett, and
+Williams, and other Abolitionists who have recently been banished from
+Missouri, insurrectionists? _We know_ they are _not_, whatever
+slaveholders may choose to call them. The spirit which now asperses the
+character of the Abolitionists, is the _very same_ 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.
+_False_ witnesses must appear against Abolitionists before they can be
+condemned.
+
+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? _They_
+came with _carnal weapons_ to engage in _bloody_ 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, _not_ 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 _Thompson_ 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 _foreign emissary_ in the Roman colony
+of Philippi, as George Thompson was in America, and it was because he
+was a _Jew_, and taught customs it was not lawful for them to receive or
+observe being Romans, that the Apostle was thus treated.
+
+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 _Britons_ on _American Slavery_, to the _subjects_ of a
+_King_, on the abject condition of the _slaves of a Republic_. 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?
+
+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. _Slavery_ may produce these horrible scenes if it is
+continued five years longer, but Emancipation _never will_.
+
+I can prove the _safety_ 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
+_this time_ that all those dreadful scenes of cruelty occurred, which we
+so often _unjustly_ hear spoken of, as the effects of Abolition. They
+were occasioned _not_ by Emancipation, but by the base attempt to fasten
+the chains of slavery on the limbs of liberated slaves.
+
+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, _they preferred immediate emancipation_, 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 _safest_ and
+the best plan.
+
+And why not try it in the Southern States, if it _never_ has occasioned
+rebellion; if _not a drop of blood_ 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 _every
+thing_ from the continuance of slavery.
+
+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 _Christian women_. 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, "_God only_ 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 _chosen the weak things of the world_, 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,
+
+
+
+Your sympathizing Friend,
+
+ANGELINA E. GRIMKE.
+
+Shrewsbury, N.J., 1836.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+
+THIRD EDITION.
+
+Price 6 1-4 cents single, 62 1-2 cents per dozen, $4 per hundred.
+
+
+No. 3.
+
+
+THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+LETTER OF GERRIT SMITH
+
+TO
+
+REV. JAMES SMYLIE,
+
+OF THE
+
+STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.
+
+
+1837.
+
+LETTER, ETC.
+
+PETERBORO', October 28, 1836.
+
+
+Rev. JAMES SMYLIE,
+
+_Late Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Mississippi:_
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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!
+
+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.
+
+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 _property_, 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, _to all
+intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever_."
+
+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]. 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 _nature_ 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.
+
+[Footnote 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, _in any way_, 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 _mere things_--how unreasonable, I say, is it to suppose, that
+they would consent to put a _man_ to death, on account of his treatment,
+in whatever way, of a _mere thing_? 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 _man_ should be put to death, for the liberty he had
+taken in disposing of a _thing_. They had rather perjure themselves,
+than by avenging the blood of a _slave_ with that of a _man_, make a
+breach upon the policy of keeping the slave ignorant, that he has the
+_nature_, and consequently the _rights_, of a man.]
+
+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.
+
+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!
+
+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.
+
+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!"
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?
+
+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 _beau ideal_ 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]. 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.
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+1st. Is not Southern slavery guilty of a most heaven-daring crime, in
+substituting concubinage for God's institution of marriage?
+
+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[B]--but it dies as surely, when you prune it of its manifold
+incidents of pollution and irreligion.
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _property_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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]. 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.
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+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.
+
+For the sake of the argument, I will admit, that the Apostles made no
+specific attack on slavery[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.
+
+[Footnote 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.
+
+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,
+
+  "He that is robb'd------
+  Let him not know it, and he's not robbed at all."
+
+
+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. ]
+
+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[B]. 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
+
+[Footnote B: 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." _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._]
+
+  "------to fan him while he sleeps,
+  And tremble when he wakes."
+
+
+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 _thing_. It occurs to me,
+that if a shrewd lawyer had you on trial for theft, he would say, that
+you were _estopped_ from going into this distinction between a _man_ and
+a _thing_, inasmuch as, by your own laws, the slave is expressly
+declared to be a _chattel_--is expressly _elevated_ into a _thing_. He
+would say, however competent it may be for others to justify themselves
+on the ground, that it was but a _man_, and not a _thing_, 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 _thing_, instead of _a
+mere man_.
+
+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?
+
+2d. I go on to account for the Apostles' omission to specify slavery.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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!
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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], 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.
+
+[Footnote 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 _abolitionized_ 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.]
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+1st. You find passages in the New Testament, where you think _despotes_
+refers to a person who is a slaveholder, and _doulos_ 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 _despotes_ means "God"--Jesus Christ"--Head of a
+family:" and where _doulos_ means "a minister or agent"--a subject of a
+king"--a disciple or follower of Christ." _Despotes_ and _doulos_ are
+the words used in the original of the expression: "Lord, now lettest
+thou thy servant depart in peace:" _doulos_ 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 _doulos_ in
+a, generic, as well as in a special sense. _Doulos_ and _doule_ 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
+_doulos_ and _doule_; 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 _doulos_ and
+_doule_ to a species of servants, the prophecy would have reference to
+persons of all ages, classes, and conditions--_excepting certain
+descriptions of servants_. Under this interpretation, we are brought to
+the absurd conclusion, that the spirit is to be poured out upon the
+master and his slaves--_but not upon his hired servants_.
+
+I trust that enough has been said, under this my first head, to show
+that the various senses in which the words _despotes_ and _doulos_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _part of the servants_. May we not reasonably complain
+of your interpretation, that it violates analogy?
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+I need not extend my remarks to prove, that _despotes_ and _doulos_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _abuses_ 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 _abuses_, (if indeed we may speak of the abuses of what is in itself
+an _abuse_,) sinless? I am aware, that Prof. Hodge says, that it was so:
+and, when he classes despotism and slavery with _adiaphora_, "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 _nature_ of civil government
+is an indifferent thing: and that the poet was right when he said,
+
+  "For forms of government let _fools_ contest?"
+
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _abuses_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+1st. My strongest reason is, that the great and comprehensive
+principles, and the whole genius and spirit of Christianity, are opposed
+to slavery.
+
+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.
+
+We learn from the Bible, that it was not because of the _abuses_ 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
+_abuses_ 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.
+
+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."
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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!
+
+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 _abuses_ 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.
+
+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 _to yield to them
+on every occasion_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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 _to work well_--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.
+
+Having disposed of your "strong reasons" for the position, that the New
+Testament authorizes slavery, I proceed to consider your remaining
+reasons for it.
+
+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 _any_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?"
+
+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 _legally_ 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.
+
+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 _long_ "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 _long_ "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 _slave_, but above a
+_slave_--a brother beloved."
+
+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.
+
+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 _slave_, but
+above a _slave_, 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.
+
+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 _relation_ 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 _not only_ 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!
+
+"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 _pride_ and _selfishness_, not of
+_principle_."
+
+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.
+
+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?
+
+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!
+
+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
+_immediate_ abandonment of sin."
+
+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 "_the_ 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 "_the_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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, _be_ 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."
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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
+_chattelizing_ 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 _thing_ 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
+_man_ and not a _thing_--a responsible, and not an irresponsible being,
+that he must continue in his present trials and sufferings.
+
+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.
+
+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
+
+  --"bear those ills we have,
+  Than fly to others that we know not of."
+
+
+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 _outlaw_ 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.
+
+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. _Then_, 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 _for ever_ to a servitude more severe than that, from which
+he had escaped. Indeed, if a _freeman_ 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.
+
+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 _property_ 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.
+
+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 _surely_ to be punished with death; whilst mere
+property was allowed to atone for the offence of stealing property.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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 _doulos_
+and _doule_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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--_only they think it
+inexpedient to say so_. 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."
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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
+
+
+
+Your friend,
+
+GERRIT SMITH.
+
+
+
+
+
+No. 4
+
+
+
+THE
+
+ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+
+THE
+
+BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+
+
+AN INQUIRY
+
+INTO THE
+
+PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS
+
+ON THE SUBJECT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
+
+
+NEW-YORK:
+
+PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
+
+NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.
+
+
+1837.
+
+POSTAGE--This periodical contains five and a half sheets. Postage under
+100 miles, 8-1/2 cts over 100 miles, 14 cents.
+
+_Please read and circulate._
+
+PIERCY & REED. PRINTERS,
+
+7 Theatre Alley.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+    Definition of Slavery
+
+    Man-stealing--Examination of Ex. xxi. 16
+
+    Import of "Bought with money," etc.
+
+    Rights and privileges of servants
+
+    No involuntary servitude under the Mosaic system
+
+    Servants were paid wages
+
+    Masters, not owners
+
+    Servants distinguished from property
+
+    Social equality of servants with their masters
+
+    Condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrew
+    Commonwealth
+
+    Egyptian bondage analyzed
+
+    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+    "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be," etc. Gen.
+    ix. 25
+
+    "For he is his money," Examination of, Ex. xxi. 20, 21
+
+    "Bondmen and bondmaids" bought of the heathen. Lev. xxv. 44-46
+
+    "They shall be your bondmen forever." Lev. xxv. 46
+
+    "Ye shall take them as an inheritance," etc. Lev. xxv. 46
+
+    The Israelite to serve as a hired servant. Lev. xxv. 39, 40
+
+    Difference between bought and hired servants
+
+    Bought servants the most privileged class
+
+    Summary of the different classes of servants
+
+    Disabilities of the servants from the heathen
+
+    Examination of Exodus xxi. 2-6
+
+    The Canaanites not sentenced to unconditional extermination
+
+
+
+
+
+
+INQUIRY, &c.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+The spirit of slavery never takes refuge in the Bible _of its own
+accord._ 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.
+
+
+DEFINITION OF SLAVERY.
+
+If we would know whether the Bible is the charter of slavery, we must
+first determine _just what slavery is_. 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 _other_ things, of which there are relations and appendages.
+To regard them as _the things_ 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.
+
+1. _Privation of the right of suffrage_. Then _minors_ are slaves.
+
+2. _Ineligibility to office_. Then _females_ are slaves.
+
+3. _Taxation without representation_. Then three-fourths of the people
+of Rhode Island are slaves, and _all_ in the District of Columbia.
+
+4. _Privation of one's oath in law_. Then the _free_ colored people of
+Ohio are slaves. So are disbelievers in a future retribution, generally.
+
+5. _Privation of trial by jury_. Then all in France and Germany are
+slaves.
+
+6. _Being required to support a particular religion_. Then the people of
+England are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all other
+disabilities, merely political.]
+
+7. _Cruelty and oppression_. Wives are often cruelly treated; hired
+domestics are often oppressed; but these forms of oppression are not
+slavery.
+
+8. _Apprenticeship_. The rights and duties of master and apprentice are
+correlative and reciprocal. The _claim_ of each upon the other results
+from the _obligation_ 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 _just_
+to the master, it is _benevolent_ to the apprentice. Its main design is
+rather to benefit the apprentice than the master. It _promotes_ 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 _right_ 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 _equally_ 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?
+
+9. _Filial subordination and parental claims_. Both are nature's
+dictates, and indispensable to the existence of the social state; their
+_design_ the promotion of mutual welfare; and the _means_, 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 _whole_, 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.
+
+10. _Bondage for crime, or governmental claims on criminals._ 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?_ 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 _chattel_. Test it. To own property is to own its
+product. Are children born of convicts government property? Besides, can
+_property_ be _guilty_? Are _chattels_ punished?
+
+11. _Restrictions upon freedom._ 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, _the climax of slavery_, and its executive a king
+among slaveholders.
+
+12. _Involuntary or compulsory service_. A juryman is empannelled
+_against his will_, and sit he _must_. A sheriff orders his posse;
+bystanders _must_ turn in. Men are _compelled_ 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 _condition_. The slave's _feelings_ toward it, are one thing; the
+condition itself, the object of these feelings, is _another_ thing; his
+feelings cannot alter the nature of that condition. Whether he _desire_
+or _detest_ it, the _condition_ remains the same. The slave's
+_willingness_ 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 _make_ him a chattel,
+or make those guiltless who _hold_ 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 _consent_ 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 _voluntariness_, so far from _lessening_ the guilt of the "owner,"
+_aggravates_ it. If slavery has so palsied his mind and 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 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.
+
+Many of the foregoing conditions and relations are _appendages_ of
+slavery, and some of them inseparable from it. But no one, nor all of
+them together, constitute its _intrinsic unchanging element_.
+
+We proceed to state affirmatively that,
+
+ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY, making free
+agents chattels, converting _persons_ into _things_, sinking
+intelligence, accountability, immortality, into _merchandise_. A _slave_
+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." _His right
+to himself is abrogated._ He is another's property. If he say _my_
+hands, _my_ feet, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY_self_; they are figures of
+speech. To _use himself_ for his own good is a CRIME. To keep what he
+_earns_ is stealing. To take his body into his own keeping is
+_insurrection_. In a word, the> _profit_ of his master is the END of his
+being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end, a _mere means_ to an end into
+which his interests do not enter, of which they constitute no
+portion[A]. MAN sunk to a _thing_! the intrinsic element, the
+_principle_ 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 _rights_ 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, _the reduction of persons to
+things_; not robbing a man of privileges, but of _himself_; not loading
+with burdens, but making him a _beast of burden_; not _restraining_
+liberty, but subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them;
+not inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not
+exacting involuntary labor, but sinking him into an _implement_ of
+labor; not abridging his human comforts, but abrogating his _human
+nature_; not depriving an animal of immunities, but _despoiling a
+rational being of attributes_, uncreating a MAN to make room for a
+_thing_!
+
+[Footnote A: Whatever system sinks man from an END to a _means_, or in
+other words, whatever transforms him from an object of instrumentality
+into a mere instrumentality _to_ an object, just so far makes him a
+_slave_. Hence West India apprenticeship retains in _one_ 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 _mere means_, a _slave_. 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.]
+
+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 _things_--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
+_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." Civil Code of
+Louisiana, Art. 35.
+
+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.
+
+Having stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE
+BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A][A]? To the _law_ and the
+_testimony_. 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. _Two_ of those commandments deal death
+to slavery. Look at the eighth, "_Thou shall not steal_," or, thou shalt
+not take from another what belongs to him. All man's powers of body and
+mind are God's gift to _him_. That they are _his own_, and that he has a
+right to them, is proved from the fact that God has given them to _him
+alone_, 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 _use_ 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 _use_. The right
+to use according to will, is _itself_ 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 _relative_ to his right to himself--is derived
+from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the _foundation
+right_--the _post in the middle_, to which all other rights are
+fastened. Slaveholders, the world over, when talking about their RIGHT
+to their slaves, always assume _their own right to themselves_. What
+slaveholder ever undertook to prove his own right to himself? He knows
+it to be a self-evident proposition, that _a man belongs to
+himself_--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 _himself_. As the fact of being _a man_ 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 _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of _his own_;
+and yet in the act of making him a slave, the slaveholder _asserts_ the
+validity of his own title, while he seizes _him_ as his property who has
+the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he does not merely
+unhumanize _one_ individual, but UNIVERSAL MAN. He destroys the
+foundations. He annihilates _all rights_. He attacks not only the human
+race, but _universal being_, and rushes upon JEHOVAH.--For rights are
+_rights_; God's are no more--man's are no less.
+
+[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral
+character. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records
+without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob
+and his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and
+concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent
+entry_ God's _endorsement_? Because the Bible, in its catalogue of human
+actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write
+against it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach
+it into a virtue?]
+
+The eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any_ part of that which
+belongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which
+forbids the taking of _any_ thing belonging to him, sanction the taking
+of _every_ thing? Is it such a medley of absurdities as to thunder wrath
+against him who robs his neighbor of a _cent_, while it bids God speed
+to him who robs his neighbor of _himself_? Slavery is the highest
+possible violation of the eighth commandment. To take from a man his
+earnings, is theft. But to take the _earner_, 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 _tenth_ adds, "_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 _tempt_ to it. Who
+ever made human beings slaves, or held them as slaves without _coveting_
+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 _take_ them, if they do not _desire_ 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. _Ten_ commandments constitute the brief compend of
+human duty. _Two_ of these brand slavery as sin.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+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--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.
+
+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. "_He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if
+he be found in his hand, he shall be surely put to death_." Ex. xxii.
+16. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance to the Mosaic
+system! See also Deut. xxiv. 7[A].
+
+[Footnote 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, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_, the person
+compelling him but once to do so shall die as a thief, whether he has
+sold him or not."]
+
+The Hebrew word, _Gaunab_, here rendered _stealeth_, means the taking
+from another what _belongs_ to him, whether it be by violence or fraud;
+the same word is used in the eighth commandment, and prohibits both
+_robbery_ and theft.
+
+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
+_servant, not_ "he that stealeth a _man_." If the crime had been the
+taking of an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have
+been _expressive of that relation_, and _most especially_ if it was the
+relation of property and _proprietor_!
+
+The crime, as stated in the passage, is three-fold--man _stealing_,
+_selling_ and _holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one
+penalty--DEATH. This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of man, is the
+_man himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said to the servants
+of Pharoah, "Indeed I was _stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews."
+Gen. xl. 15. How _stolen_? His brethren took him and sold him as an
+_article of merchandize_. Contrast this penalty for _man_-stealing with
+that for _property_-stealing. Exod. xxii. If a man stole an _ox_ 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.
+
+But in the case of stealing a _man_, 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
+_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-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 _property value_ was taken. The penalty for stealing _property_
+was a mere _property penalty_. However large the amount stolen, the
+payment of _double_ wiped out the score. It might have a greater _money_
+value than a _thousand_ men, yet _death_ was never the penalty, nor
+maiming, nor branding, nor even _stripes_. Whatever the kind, or the
+amount stolen, the unvarying penalty was double of _the same kind_. Why
+was not the rule uniform? When a _man_ was stolen why not require the
+thief 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 _have_ them? So
+the _ox_-thief might not have two _oxen_, or if he had killed it,
+_five_. But if God permitted men to hold _men_ 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 whole of the legal penalty was
+a compensation to the person injured. But when a _man_ was stolen, no
+property compensation was offered. To tender _money_ 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 _money!_
+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 _man-stealing_
+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."
+
+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, perhaps not a sixpence worth, of _that_ 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 _property_, by putting him
+_on a level with it_?
+
+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 _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 the _nature_
+of the article, but in _shifting its external relation_ from _him to
+me_. But when I take my neighbor _himself_, and first make him
+_property_, and then _my_ 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 _already property_, but in turning _personality_
+into _property_. True, the _attributes_ of man still remain, but the
+rights and immunities which grow out of them are _annihilated_. 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 _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
+in its "scarlet dye." The sin specified in the passage, is that of doing
+violence to the _nature_ of a _man_--his _intrinsic value_ 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, "_He then 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
+that same blow were given to a _parent_, the law struck the smiter
+_dead_. 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 _centre_ of human relations. To violate that,
+is to violate _all_. Whoever trampled on _that_, 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.
+
+But why the difference in the penalty since the _act_ was the same? The
+sin had divers aggravations.
+
+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 centre of the social
+system, and required powerful safe-guards. "_Honor thy father and thy
+mother_," 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
+_smiting_, nor for smiting a _man_, but a _parent_--for violating a
+vital and sacred relation--a _distinction_ 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 _fundamental relations_, doing violence
+to an _immortal nature_, making war on a _sacred distinction_ of
+priceless worth. That distinction which is cast headlong by the
+principle of American slavery; which makes MEN "_chattels_."
+
+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.
+
+"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?
+"_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, and over every living thing
+that moveth upon the earth_."
+
+_Then_ 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"--"_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_." 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, "_Whoso
+sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for_ 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 _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 Levit. xxiv. 17, 18, "_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 the passage quoted above, Ps. viii. 5, 6. What an
+enumeration of particulars, each separating infinitely, MEN from brutes
+and things!
+
+1. "_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels_." Slavery drags
+him down among _brutes_.
+
+2. "_And hast crowned him with glory and honor_." Slavery tears off his
+crown, and puts on a _yoke_.
+
+3. "_Thou madest him to have dominion_ OVER _the works of thy hands_."
+Slavery breaks his sceptre, and casts him down _among_ those works--yea,
+_beneath them_.
+
+4. "_Thou hast put all things under his feet_." Slavery puts HIM _under
+the feet of an owner_, 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, "_Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it
+unto me_."
+
+But time would fail us to detail the instances in which this distinction
+is most impressively marked in the Bible.
+
+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 _legal_ forms of Divine
+institutions previously existing. As a _system_, however, the latter
+alone is of Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the
+_patriarchs_, God has not made them our examplars[A].
+
+[Footnote 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 _concubinage_,
+winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, 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!]
+
+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.
+
+
+IMPORT OF THE WORD "BUY," AND THE PHRASE "BOUGHT WITH MONEY."
+
+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 _property_. The sole ground for this
+belief is the _terms_ "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
+_assumed_. To _beg_ 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 _one_ 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
+_slaves, is the terms themselves._
+
+What a Babel-jargon it would make of the Bible to take it for granted
+that the sense in which words are _now_ used is the _inspired_ sense.
+
+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, _prevent_ was used in the strict Latin sense to
+_come before_, or _anticipate_. 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 _prevent_ thee."
+"Let us _prevent_ his face with thanksgiving." "Mine eyes _prevent_ the
+night watches." "We shall not _prevent_ 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 _opposite_ to their
+present meaning. A few examples follow: "Oftentimes I purposed to come
+to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the four _beasts_
+(living ones) fell down and worshipped God,"--Whosoever shall _offend_
+(cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--Go out into the high ways and
+_compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--Only let your _conversation_
+(habitual conduct or course of life) be as becometh the Gospel,"--They
+that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me,--Give me _by and by_
+(now) in a charger, the head of John the Baptist,"--So when tribulation
+or persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (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 _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 _now_. 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 _now_, they _must_ have been in Canaan
+and Pandanaram four thousand years ago!
+
+II. 1. The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring
+of servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the
+fallacy--that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or
+whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of
+your paying for it _proves_ that it is property. The children of Israel
+were required to _purchase_ 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 _buy_ is
+still used to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their
+first-born were, or are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really
+as were _servants_. So 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?
+
+2. Bible saints _bought_ their wives. Boaz _bought_ Ruth. "So Ruth the
+Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ to be my wife." Ruth
+iv. 10. Hosea bought his wife. "So I _bought_ 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 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 _give_. 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 _real_ 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 _medium_ 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 _wives_, their husbands and their masters
+being the same persons. Exod. xxi. 8, and Judges xix. 3, 27. If _buying_
+servants among the Jews shows that they were property, then buying
+_wives_ shows that _they_ 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
+_bound_ 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.
+
+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 _marriages_ in the old German
+Chronicles was "A. BOUGHT B."
+
+The Hebrew word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the
+nature of the subject to which it is applied. Eve says, "I have _gotten_
+(bought) a man of the Lord." She named him Cain, that is, _bought_. "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 _buy_)
+the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. He brought them to this
+mountain which his right hand had _purchased_, i.e. gotten. Jer. xiii.
+4. "Take the girdle that thou hast got" (bought.) Neh. v. 8. "We of our
+ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren that were sold to the
+heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons who were made
+slaves, but to those taken _out_ 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 _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own
+soul." Prov. xvi. 16. "How much better is it to _get_ (buy) wisdom than
+gold?" Finally, to _buy_ is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word
+_Kana_.
+
+4. Even at this day the word _buy_ 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 "_bought_" 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.
+
+So under the system of legal _indenture_ in Illinois, servants now are
+"_bought_."[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 _bought out_ 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 _bought_
+him." When Robert Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever
+will pay it can _buy_ 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 _buy_ them," they both meant
+_just what they said_. When the temperance publications tell us that
+candidates for office _buy_ men with whiskey; and the oracles of street
+tattle, that the court, district attorney, and jury, in the late trial
+of Robinson were _bought_, we have no floating visions of "chattels
+personal," man auctions, or coffles.
+
+[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the state of
+Illinois--"No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time _purchase_
+any servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the
+persons aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such
+servant shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed, and
+taken."]
+
+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 _buy_ them. When the bargain was closed, Joseph said, "Behold I
+have _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain that neither of the
+parties dreamed that the persons _bought_ were in any sense articles of
+property, but merely that they became thereby obligated to labor for the
+government on certain conditions, as a _compensation_ 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 _value received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were
+bereft of their personal ownership, and made articles of property. And
+this buying of _services_ (they were to give one-fifth part of their
+crops to Pharaoh) is called in Scripture usage, _buying the persons_.
+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 _mere fact_ is stated without
+entering into particulars. In this case, the whole process is laid open.
+
+1. The persons "bought," _sold themselves_, and of their own accord.
+
+2. Obtaining permanently the _services_ of persons, or even a portion of
+them, is called "buying" those persons. The objector, at the outset,
+assumes that servants were bought of _third_ persons; and thence infers
+that they were articles of property. This is sheer _assumption_. 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 _master sold his servant_. That the servants who
+were "bought" _sold themselves_, is a fair inference from various
+passages of Scripture.
+
+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 _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word, which, in the 47th
+verse, is rendered _sell himself_, is in the 39th verse of the same
+chapter, rendered _be sold_; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is
+rendered "_be sold_." 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 _offer yourselves_ for sale. For
+a clue to Scripture usage on this point, see 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25--"Thou
+hast _sold thyself_ to work evil." "There was none like to Ahab that
+_sold himself_ to work wickedness."--2 Kings xvii. 17. "They used
+divination and enchantments, and _sold themselves_ to do evil."--Isa. l.
+1. "For your iniquities have ye _sold yourselves_." Isa. lii. 3, "Ye
+have _sold yourselves_ 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.
+
+Again, if servants were _bought of third persons_, where are the
+instances? In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is
+generally stated that they were bought of _third_ persons. Is it not a
+fair inference, if servants were bought of third persons, that there
+would _sometimes_ have been such an intimation?
+
+
+
+II.-THE LEADING DESIGN OF THE MOSAIC LAWS RELATING TO MASTERS AND
+SERVANTS, WITH AN ENUMERATION OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO
+SERVANTS.
+
+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 _servants_. While the interests of the master were
+specially guarded from injury, those of the servants were _promoted_.
+
+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 _privileges_--a bestowment of _favors_.
+
+1. _No servant from the Strangers, could remain a servant in the family
+of an Israelite, without becoming a proselyte_. Compliance with this
+condition was the _price of the privilege_.--Genesis xvii. 9-14, 23, 27.
+
+2. _Excommunication from the family was a_ PUNISHMENT.--Genesis xxi.
+14-Luke xvi. 2-4.
+
+3. _The fact that every Hebrew servant could_ COMPEL _his master to keep
+him after the six years contract had, expired_, 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
+_demanded_ it, the law _obliged_ 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.
+
+4. _The rights and privileges guaranteed by law to all servants._ (1.)
+_They were admitted into covenant with God._ Deut. xxix. 10-13.
+
+(2.) _They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals
+of the household in which they resided._ Exodus xii. 43-44; Deut. xii.
+12, 18, and xvi. 10-16.
+
+(3.) _They were statedly instructed in morality and religion._ Deut.
+xxxi. 10-13; Joshua viii. 33-35; 2 Chronicles xvii. 8-9.
+
+(4.) _They were released from their regular labor nearly_ 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.
+
+(a.) The Law secured to them the _whole of every seventh year_; Lev.
+xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those servants that remained such during the
+entire period between the jubilees, _eight whole years_ (including the
+Jubilee year) of unbroken rest.
+
+(b.) _Every seventh day_. This in forty-two years, (the eight being
+subtracted from the fifty) would amount to just _six years_.
+
+(c.) _The three great annual festivals_. The _Passover_, 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 _festival week_; 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 _nine weeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years,
+subtracting the sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.
+
+(e.) _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus tells us that
+the Jews always kept _two_ 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.
+
+(f.) _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and
+of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.
+
+(g.) _The day of atonement_. On the tenth of the seventh month. Lev.
+xxiii. 27-32.
+
+These two last feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days of
+time not otherwise reckoned.
+
+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
+_fractions_ to the objector, we have left out of the account, those
+numerous _local_ festivals to which frequent allusion is made, as in
+Judges xxi. 19; 1 Sam. 9th chapter. And the various _family_ 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.
+
+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 _every day_, the servants would have _to
+themselves_, all but a _fraction of_ ONE HALF OF EACH DAY, and would
+labor for their masters the remaining fraction and the other half of the
+day.
+
+THIS REGULATION IS A PART OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY
+SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE GREAT PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.
+
+5. _The servant was protected by law equally with the other members of
+the community_.
+
+Proof--"_Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously
+between every man and his neighbor, 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, 17. Also in Lev. xxiv. 22.
+"_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_." So Numbers 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, _the fatherless and the
+widow_."
+
+6. _The Mosaic system enjoined upon the Israelites the greatest
+affection and kindness toward their servants, foreign as well as
+Jewish_.
+
+Lev. xix. 34. "_The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as
+one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself_." Also Deut. x.
+17, 19. "_For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a
+great God, a mighty and a terrible, which_ REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, _nor
+taketh reward. 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 Exodus xxii. 21. "_Thou shalt neither vex a
+stranger nor oppress him_." Exodus 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_." [What an absurdity to suppose
+that _this same stranger_ could be taken by one that _feared his God_,
+held as a _slave_, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights!]
+
+7. _Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in all civil
+and religious rights_. See Numbers xv. 15, 16, 29. Numb. ix. 14. Deut,
+i. 16, 17. Lev. xxiv. 22.
+
+
+
+III.--DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE THEY MADE
+SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?
+
+We argue that they became servants _of their own accord_,
+
+1. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to
+abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God[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.
+
+[Footnote 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."
+"But he that is in the _house_ 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 _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown
+slave, and he be _unwilling_, 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 _refuse_ 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."--Maimon, Hilcoth, Miloth, Chap. 1st,
+Sec. 8th.
+
+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 _full
+compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. But
+that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign servant for a
+year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of an Israelite)
+of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a mere usage_.
+We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system.
+Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_. Whether it was
+a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes not within the
+scope of this inquiry. Nor does it at all affect the argument. ]
+
+Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes? Was the
+renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant
+with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they
+_compelled_ 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 _driven_ 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?
+
+We repeat it, to become a _servant_, was to become a _proselyte_. 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
+_merchandise_? Were _proselyte_ and _chattel_ synonymes, in the Divine
+vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into covenant
+with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and the sole
+passport to the communion of the saints?
+
+2. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,
+"_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_."
+
+As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the
+_right_ of the master to hold him. His _fleeing_ "shows his
+_choice_--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 _right_ 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 _Israelites_, but
+only to those of _heathen_ 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 _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and
+yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of
+_thousands_ of servants from the heathen! Suppose a case. A _foreign_
+servant flees from his master to the Israelites; God speaks, "He shall
+dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy
+gates where it _liketh_ him best." They were strictly charged not to put
+him in a condition which he did not _choose_. Now, suppose this same
+servant, instead of coming into Israel of his own accord, had been
+_dragged_ 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 _voluntarily_ came into the land,
+sanction the _same_ treatment of the _same person_, 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 a
+horrible enormity, forsooth, PROVIDED you _begin_ the violence _after_
+he has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_, on the _other
+side of the line_; if you _begin_ the outrage by buying him from a third
+person _against his will_, 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 _greater_ 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 _him_, uncircumcised and _out_ of the covenant, a
+justice and kindness denied to the multitude, who _were_ circumcised,
+and _within_ the covenant?
+
+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 _counteraction of will_. Further, the
+objector's assumption destroys itself; for the same command which
+protected the foreign servant from the power of his _master_, protected
+him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was not merely, "Thou
+shalt not deliver him to his _master_," but "he (the servant) shall
+dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, 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 _against his
+will_. What was this but a proclamation, that all who _chose_ 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
+_foreign_ servants merely, was the any law requiring the return of
+servants who had escaped from the _Israelites_? There was a statute
+requiring the return of _property_ lost, and _cattle_ escaped, but none
+requiring the return of escaped _servants_.
+
+Finally, these verses contain, _first_, a command, "Thou shalt not
+deliver," &c. _Secondly_, a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free
+choice_, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own
+discretion; and _thirdly_, a command guarding this right, namely, "Thou
+shalt not oppress him," as though God had said, If you forbid him to
+exercise his _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his
+residence, it is _oppression_, and I will not tolerate it.
+
+3. _We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar
+opportunities and facilities for escape_. 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
+_"slaves"_ three times in a year to Jerusalem and back? When a body of
+slaves is moved any distance in our free and equal _republic_, they are
+handcuffed to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers'
+brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ 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 _extra_ being appointed, and special "ORAL instruction" for
+their benefit. But meanwhile, what became of the sturdy _handmaids_ 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.
+
+4. _Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance
+of various rites and ceremonies necessarily_ VOLUNTARY.
+
+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 _slave_, how simple the process of
+emancipation! His _refusal_ 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;" _excommunicated_.
+
+5. _We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs from
+the impossibility of their being held against their wills._ The servants
+of Abraham are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred and
+eighteen _young men_ "born in his house," and probably many more _not_
+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 _took turns_ 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," _provided_ they
+had a description of the "flesh marks," and were stimulated in their
+chivalry by _pieces of silver_. 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.
+
+6. _We infer that servants were voluntary, from the fact that there is
+no instance of an Israelitish master ever_ SELLING _a servant_. 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.
+
+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 _no
+servants_. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 6; xlvii. 1. His servants doubtless,
+served under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into Egypt, they
+_chose_ to stay in their own country.
+
+The government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until
+their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex.
+xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their
+_servants_--the reason is obvious. To give the master a _right_ 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 _buy_ a
+servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of choice_. 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 _another_ man.
+
+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
+_fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their betrothal as
+WIVES. Exodus 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]."
+
+[Footnote 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."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, 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 _money of her purchase_ is the money of her
+_espousals_." ]
+
+7. _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 _choice_ 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
+_free choice_ protected, that his master was compelled to keep him,
+however much he might wish to get rid of him.
+
+8. _The method prescribed for procuring servants, recognized their
+choice, and was an appeal to it_. The Israelites were commanded to offer
+them a suitable _inducement_, and then leave them to decide. They might
+neither seize by _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle
+them by false pretenses, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they
+were commanded to BUY them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the
+_right_ of the individuals to their own services--their right to
+_dispose_ of them, and their right to _refuse all offers_. They might,
+if they pleased, refuse all applications, and thus oblige those who made
+them, _to do their own work_. Suppose all, with one accord, _refused_ to
+become servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an
+emergency? NONE.
+
+[Footnote 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, _stands by itself_, and has no relation to the
+condition of servants.]
+
+9. _Various incidental expressions throughout the Bible, corroborate the
+idea that servants became such by virtue of 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?_"
+
+10. _The transaction which made the Egyptians the_ SERVANTS OF PHAROAH,
+_shows entire voluntariness throughout_. 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 _bodies_ and our lands; _buy_ us;" then in the 25th
+verse, _"Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my
+Lord, and we will be servants to Pharaoh._"
+
+11. _We argue that the condition of servants was an_ OPTIONAL _one 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.
+
+12. _The sacrifices and offerings which_ ALL _were required to present,
+were to be made_ VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3.
+
+13. _Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where they were
+manifestly and pre-eminently_ VOLUNTARY. The case of the Prophet Elisha
+is one. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. 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 _master_ 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.
+
+
+
+IV. WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?
+
+Having already shown that the servants became and continued such _of
+their own accord_, it would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work
+without pay. Their becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a
+motive.
+
+That they _were paid_ for their labor, we argue,
+
+1. _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._" 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 _Mosaic system_. The Hebrew word _Rea_, here translated
+_neighbor_, 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, not merely servants and heathen, but 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." Exod. xx.
+16. "_If any man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with
+guile_." Exod. xxi. 14. In these, and in scores of similar cases, _Rea_
+is the original word.
+
+2. _We have the testimony of God, 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 Saviour, in giving this command, quoted
+_verbatim_ 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, "_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, 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 _our own_ good alone,
+Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human
+nature, especially for that libellous matter in Ephes. v. 29, "_No man
+ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it_."
+
+3. _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 still employed twenty servants, of whom
+he was the master.
+
+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
+_redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. As he was forced to
+sell himself from sheer poverty he must not only have acquired property
+_after_ he became a servant, but a considerable sum.
+
+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]) 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[B]. 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 _owner of a house_. 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 _servants_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide with accuracy
+upon the _relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and _now_, yet we have
+enough to warrant us in saying that two talents of silver had far more
+value _then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing
+a large amount of money? They "_know how to take care of themselves_"
+quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on
+such a _small_ scale, or in the taking of _such things_ 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 _proficients_ in the art, who drive the
+business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their
+betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at
+a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ 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 _Right_ and _Very
+Reverends_! 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
+_situation_, 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 _slay_ one who
+would slay him" See Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8]
+
+4. _Heirship_--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.
+
+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 _husbandmen_ who said
+of their master's son, "_this is the_ HEIR, let us kill him, _and_ the
+INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS." Mark xii. 7, are illustrations. Also the
+declaration in 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 seems to give _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?
+
+5. 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 _acquiring_ property to
+meet these expenditures.
+
+6. _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 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]." 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
+_Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they
+did not go out in the seventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. If
+the fact that no mention is made of the Gentile servants receiving such
+a _gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_; it proves
+that the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs
+also, a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators,
+however unscrupulous.
+
+[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as
+follows--"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say,
+'_Loading ye shall load him._' 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 _you, not less
+than thirty shekels_, which is the valuation of a servant, as declared
+in Exodus xxi. 32"--Maimonides, Hilcoth, Obedim, Chapter ii. Section 3.]
+
+7. _The servants were_ BOUGHT. _In other words, they received
+compensation for their services in advance_. Having shown, under a
+previous head, that servants _sold themselves_, 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[B],) a mere
+reference to the fact in this place is all that is required for the
+purposes of this argument.
+
+[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and
+boys at thirteen years.]
+
+8. _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._ 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.
+
+9. _God's testimony to the character of Abraham._ Genesis 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." 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? "_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
+_"do justice"_ to others? By doing _injustice to them?_ Did he exhort
+them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back _their own_? Did he
+teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire" by robbing them of
+_theirs_? 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 _them_ "what was just and equal?" If
+each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very
+_Aristides_ in justice, then an illustrious example, patriarchal
+dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway against
+human perverseness!
+
+10. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles._
+Out of many, we select the following:
+
+(1.) _"Thou shall 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. Isaiah xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of service--_all_ kinds;
+and a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal
+ministering to man in a _certain_ 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_,
+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 _present enjoyment of a brute_, what
+would be a meet return for the services of _man_? 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--_"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. 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 _keeping_ 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 ALL HIS EARNINGS? Judge ye.
+
+
+
+V.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS THEIR LEGAL PROPERTY?
+
+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.
+
+
+
+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; Isaiah l. 1; Matt. xviii. 25.
+
+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 _servants_ were taken
+in _no instance_.
+
+(2.) _Servants were never given as pledges_. _Property_ 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
+_servants_.
+
+(3.) _All lost_ PROPERTY _was to be restored._ "Oxen, asses, sheep,
+raiment, and whatsoever lost things," are specified--servant _not_.
+Deut. xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were expressly forbidden to take
+back the runaway servant to his master. Deut. xxiii. 15.
+
+(4.) _The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents_. 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 _gifts_. 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.
+
+OBJECTION 1. _Laban_ GAVE _handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives_.
+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 _as articles of property_, then, indeed, the example of this "good
+old patriarch and slaveholder," Saint Laban, would have been a
+fore-closer to all argument.
+
+Ah! We remember his jealousy for _religion_--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!"
+
+OBJECTION 2. _Servants were enumerated in inventories of property_. If
+that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ 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_" EXODUS xx. 17.
+An examination of all the places in which servants are included among
+beasts, chattels, &c., will show, that in inventories of _mere
+property_, servants are not included, or if 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
+_greatness_ 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
+_riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if
+_greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. _"And Abraham was very
+rich in cattle, in silver and in gold."_ No mention of _servants_. So in
+the fifth verse; Lot's riches are enumerated, "_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 1. 3-5; Deut. viii.
+12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, and xxvi. 13, and xxx. 43.
+
+Divers facts dropped incidentally, show that when servants are mentioned
+in connection with property, it is in such a way as to _distinguish_
+them from it. When Jacob was about to leave Laban, his wives say, "All
+the _riches_ 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, _but they are not included with his property_.
+Compare Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16-18.
+
+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 _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 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 _staples_ of wealth, a large number of servants
+_presupposed_ large possessions of cattle, which would require many
+herdsmen. Further. When servants are spoken of in connection with _mere
+property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the
+former.
+
+The Hebrew word _Mickna_ is an illustration. It is a derivative of
+_Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, a _possession, wealth,
+riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament--and is
+applied always to _mere property_--generally to domestic animals, but
+_never_ to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in
+_distinction_ from the _Mickna._ See Gen. xii. 5. _"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_." _Substance
+gathered_ and _souls gotten_! Many will have it, that these _souls_ were
+a part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here taken to
+separate them from it)--that they were _slaves_--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 "_the souls that they had gotten_?" 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] 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 _made_."
+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[B]." "Those whom they have converted from
+idolatry."--Paulus Fagius[C]. "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."
+
+[Footnote 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 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. ]
+
+
+[Footnote B: See his "Brevis explicatio sensus literalis totius
+Scripture."]
+
+
+[Footnote C: 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.]
+
+
+
+2. _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_ COMMODITIES, _an absurdity._ The testimony of Paul, in
+Gal. iv. 1, gives an insight into 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--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.
+
+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, "_ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash his
+feet, and the men's feet that were with him!"_
+
+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 _thirty_ 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 _both_ 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 _servant_ 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 _chiefest seat_ at the
+table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of _Kish_, Saul's father; not
+the _steward_ or the _chief_ of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but
+"_one_ of the servants;" _any_ one that could be most easily spared, as
+no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking
+after asses.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+3. _The condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrew
+commonwealth, shows that they were neither articles of property, nor
+even_ INVOLUNTARY _servants_. 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 _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.) _It was voluntary_. 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.
+
+(2.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of the
+Israelites_. They still continued to reside in their own cities,
+cultivating their own fields, tending their flocks and herds, and
+exercising the functions of a _distinct_, though not independent
+community. They were _subject_ to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. 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.
+
+(1.) Whenever allusion is made to them in the history, the main body are
+spoken of as _at home_.
+
+(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 _national tribute_ to the Israelites, rendered for the privilege
+of residence and protection under their government. No service seems to
+have been required of the _females_. 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 _them_ to the condition of chattels and property,
+if there was _any_ case in which God permitted them to do so.
+
+7. _Because, throughout the Mosaic system, God warns them against
+holding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the
+Egyptians_. 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.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) _The Israelites were not dispersed among
+the families of Egypt, the property of individual owners_[A]. They
+formed a _separate_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ 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.]
+
+(2.) _They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen_[B], _one
+of the richest and most productive parts of Egypt_. Gen. xlv. 18, and
+xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27.
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+(3.) _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were _houses_, not
+_tents_. In Ex. xii. 6, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_
+of the houses are mentioned, and in the 22d, the two side posts and the
+lintel. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_--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.
+
+(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 _tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1, and xii.
+19, 21, and vi. 14, 25, and v. 19, and iii. 16, 18.
+
+(6.) _They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal of
+their own time_,--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.
+
+(7.) _They were all armed_. Ex. xxxii. 27.
+
+(8.) _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, and 35, 36.
+
+(9.) _They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem
+to have regarded them as inviolable_. 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.
+
+(10.) _Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males_.
+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.) 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.
+
+(12.) _That the great body of the people were not in the service of the
+Egyptians, we infer_ (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.
+
+(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 _there_ to enjoy it.
+
+(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.
+
+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 _at any one time_.
+
+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
+_crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_ than crops) they exacted
+it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that only the
+_poorer_ 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.
+
+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 "_sit by
+the flesh-pots_," "_eat fish freely_," and "_eat bread to the full_?" 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
+_their own_ 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?
+
+THE ISRAELITES, UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND
+PRIVILEGES. True, "_their lives were made bitter, and all the service
+wherein they made them serve was with rigor_." 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]!--their _only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ shirt and
+_one_ pair of pantaloons[B]!"--the _two hours and a half_ only for rest
+and refreshment in the twenty-four[C]!--their dwellings, _hovels_, 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 _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.
+
+[Footnote A: The law of North Carolina. See Haywood's Manual, 524-5]
+
+
+[Footnote B: The law of Louisiana. See Martin's Digest, 610.]
+
+
+[Footnote C: The whole amount of time secured by the law of Louisiana.
+See Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12]
+
+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 gave his people permission to hold
+human beings, robbed of _all_ their rights, while he threatened them
+with wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_
+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 _Lawgiver_,
+did he _create_ 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?"
+
+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.
+
+
+
+OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+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 _cause_ 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.
+
+How often has it been set up in type, that the color of the negro is the
+_Cain-mark_, 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?
+
+
+
+OBJECTION 1. "_Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto
+his brethren_." Gen. i. 25.
+
+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.
+
+Those who plead the curse on Canaan to justify negro slavery, _assume_
+all the points in debate.
+
+1. That the condition prophesied was _slavery_, rather than the mere
+_rendering of service_ to others, and that it was the bondage of
+_individuals_ rather than the condition of a _nation tributary_ to
+another, and in _that_ sense its _servant_.
+
+2. That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_ it; that it grants
+absolution to those whose crimes fulfil it, if it does not transform the
+crimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharaohs might have quoted God's
+prophecy to Abraham, "_Thy seed shall be in bondage, and they shall
+afflict them for four hundred years_." And then, what _saints_ 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 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 _now_ the servant of Shem and Japhet and the
+other sons of Ham.
+
+But it may still be objected, that though Canaan is the only one _named_
+in the curse, yet the 22d and 23d verses show that it was pronounced
+upon the posterity of Ham in general. "_And Ham, the father of Canaan,
+saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren
+without_."--Verse 22. In verse 23, Shem and Japhet cover their father
+with a garment. Verse 24, "_And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what
+his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said_," &c.
+
+It is argued that this younger son cannot be _Canaan_, as he was not the
+_son_, but the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham_. We
+answer, whoever that "_younger son_" was, or whatever he did, _Canaan_
+alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies
+son, grandson, great-grandson, or _any one_ of the posterity of an
+individual. Gen. xxix. 5, "_And he said unto them, Know ye Laban, the_
+SON _of Nahor_?" Yet Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxiv. 15,
+29. In 2 Sam. xix. 24, it is said, "_Mephibosheth, the_ SON _of Saul,
+came down to meet the king_." But Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan,
+and the _grandson_ of Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. So Ruth iv. 17. "_There is a_
+SON _born to Naomi_." This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of
+Naomi. Ruth iv. 13, 15. So 2 Sam. xxi. 6. "_Let seven men of his
+(Saul's)_ SONS _be delivered unto us_," &c. Seven of Saul's _grandsons_
+were delivered up. 2 Sam. xxi. 8, 9. So Gen. xxi. 28, "_And hast not
+suffered me to kiss my_ SONS _and my daughters_;" and in the 55th verse,
+"_And early in the morning Laban rose up and kissed his_ SONS," &c.
+These were his _grandsons_. So 2 Kings ix. 20, "_The driving of Jehu,
+the_ SON _of Nimshi_." So 1 Kings xix. 16. But Jehu was the _grandson_
+of Nimshi. 2 Kings ix. 2, 14. Who will forbid the inspired writer to use
+the _same_ word when speaking of _Noah's_ grandson?
+
+Further, if Ham were meant what propriety in calling him the _younger_
+son? The order in which Noah's sons are always mentioned, makes Ham the
+_second_, and not the _younger_ 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 _rule_, in any other order the _exception_. 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 _Hakkaton_, rendered
+_younger_, means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isaiah
+xl. 22. "A LITTLE ONE _shall become a thousand_." Also in Isaiah xxii.
+24. "_All vessels of_ SMALL _quantity_." So Psalms cxv. 13. "_He will
+bless them that fear the Lord, both_ SMALL _and great_." Also Exodus
+xviii. 22. "_But every_ SMALL _matter they shall judge_." It would be a
+perfectly literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus,
+"when Noah knew what his little son[A], or grandson (_Beno hakkaton_)
+had done unto him, he said, cursed be Canaan," &c.
+
+[Footnote A: The French language in this respect follows the same
+analogy. Our word _grandson_ being in French, _petit fils_, (little
+son.)]
+
+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 _fraction_ 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 _home_, we answer, 1st. _It is false in point of fact_, though
+zealously bruited often to serve a turn. 2d. _If it were true_, how does
+it help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of
+servants shall he be unto his brethren" not unto _himself_!
+
+
+
+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_." Exodus xxi. 20, 21.
+
+Arguments drawn from the Mosaic system in support of slavery, originate
+in a misconception both of its genius, _as a whole_, and of the design
+and scope of its most simple provisions. The verses quoted above, afford
+an illustration in point.
+
+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 _capital_? 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 _murder_? 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 _the
+intent_, in actions brought before them. The detail gone into, in the
+verses quoted, is manifestly to enable the judges to get at the _motive_
+of the action, and find out whether the master _designed_ to kill.
+
+1. "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument used,
+gives a clue to the _intent_. See Numbers xxxv. 16, 18. It was a _rod_,
+not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other
+death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_
+would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_
+for its weapon. But if the servant dies _under his hand_, then the
+unfitness of the instrument, instead of being evidence in his favor, is
+point blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_ until he
+_dies_, argues a _great many_ blows laid on with _great_ violence, and
+this kept up to the death-gasp, establishes the point of _intent to
+kill_. Hence the sentence, "He shall _surely_ be punished." The case is
+plain and strong. But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length of
+time that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, and
+the fact that the master had a pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he is
+his _money_,") all, made out a strong case of circumstantial evidence,
+showing that the master did not _design_ 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
+_punished_, (_Nakum_,) is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet it
+occurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament--in almost every instance,
+it is translated _avenge_--in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_to
+revenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in our
+translation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the _master_--the
+_master_ in the 21st verse, is to be _punished_, and in the 22d _not_ to
+be punished; whereas the preceding pronoun refers neither to the
+_master_ nor to the _servant_, but to the _crime_, and the word rendered
+_punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. 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, _by avenging
+it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be
+_avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the next verse--"If he
+continues a day or two," his death shall not be avenged by the _death_
+of the _master_, for in that case the crime was to be adjudged
+_manslaughter_, and not _murder_, 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 _a sum of money_; and yet our translators
+employ the same phraseology in both places. One, an instance of
+deliberate, wanton, _killing by piecemeal_. The other and _accidental_,
+and comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they
+say the same thing! "_He shall surely be punished_." 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
+_avenged_," (_Nakum_,) 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, whether
+individuals or communities, to _destruction_. In the case of the
+_unintentional_ injury, in the following verse, God says, "He shall
+surely be" _fined_, (_Aunash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges
+determine." The simple meaning of the word _Aunash_, 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 (_mulcted_) the land
+in a hundred talents of gold.--This is the general use of the word, and
+its primary signification. That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was
+neither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor amercing the master in damages,
+but that it was _taking the master's life_ we infer.
+
+1. From the _Bible usage_ 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.
+
+2. From the express statute in such case provided. Leviticus xxiv. 17.
+"_He that killeth_ ANY _man_ shall surely be put to death." Also Numbers
+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 assuredly be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem thus, "Vengeance
+shall be taken for him to the _uttermost_." Jarchi gives the same
+rendering. The Samaritan version thus, "He shall die the death."
+
+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 _property_, and
+_therefore_, if he died, the master was not _to be punished_. _Because_,
+1st. A man may dispose of his _property_ as he pleases. 2d. If the
+servant died of the injury, the master's _loss_ 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 _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an
+_article of property_. 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) _is_ my body;"
+"this (wine) _is_ my blood;" "all they (the Israelites) _are_ brass, and
+tin, and iron, and lead;" "this _is_ life eternal, that they might know
+thee;" "this (the water of the well of Bethlehem) _is_ the blood of the
+men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "I _am_ the lily of the
+valleys;" "a garden enclosed _is_ my sister;" "my tears _have been_ my
+meat;" "the Lord God _is_ a sun and a shield;" "God _is_ love;" "the
+Lord _is_ my rock;" "the seven good ears _are_ seven years, and the
+seven good kine _are_ seven years;" "the seven thin and ill-favored kine
+_are_ seven years, and the seven empty ears blasted by the east wind
+_shall be_ seven years of famine;" "he _shall be_ head, and thou _shall_
+be tail;" "the Lord _will_ be a wall of fire;" "they _shall_ be one
+flesh;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "God _is_ a consuming
+fire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_
+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 _silver_ 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 _solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble with
+all--reasoning against "_forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and,
+Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted.
+
+Who in his senses believes that in the expression, "_He is his money_,"
+the object was to inculcate the doctrine that the servant was a
+_chattel_? The obvious meaning is, he is _worth money_ to his master,
+and since, if the master killed him, it would take money out of his
+pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the
+fact of his living some time after the injury_, (as, if the master
+_meant_ to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) all
+together make out a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the
+master of _intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's
+inferences. One is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_
+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 _equally_ his master's property, and the objector admits
+that in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely punished" for
+destroying _his own property_! The other inference is, that since the
+continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of _intent to kill_, 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 _pecuniary loss_, constituted no part of the
+claims of the law, where a person took the _life_ 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. "_Ye
+shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, but he shall
+surely be put to death_." 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 _adequate_ to the desert of the master, admits the master's
+_guilt_--his desert of _some_ 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--resolves himself into a
+legislature, with power in the premises, makes a _new_ 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!
+
+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
+_pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though the servant had
+_died_. 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--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same._ 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
+_same_ punishment for even the _accidental_ knocking out of a _tooth_!
+Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_, the loss of the
+servant's services is only a _part_ of the punishment--mere reparation
+to the _individual_ for injury done; the _main_ punishment, that
+strictly _judicial_, was, reparation to the _community_ for injury to
+one of its members. To set the servant _free_, 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." _"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_ STRANGER _as for one of your own country_." Lev. xxiv. 19,
+20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out the tooth of a servant, the law
+smote out _his_ tooth--thus redressing the _public_ 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.
+
+
+
+OBJECTION III. _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_. Lev. xxv. 44-46.
+
+The _points_ 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."
+
+The _second_ point, the _buying_ of servants, has been already
+discussed, see page 15. And a part of the _third_ (holding servants as a
+"possession." See p. 36.) We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery
+is derivable from the terms "bondmen," "inheritance," and "forever."
+
+I. BONDMEN. The fact that servants, from the heathen are called
+"_bondmen_," while others are called "servants," is quoted as proof that
+the former were slaves. As the _caprices_ of King James' translators
+were not divinely inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The
+word rendered _bondmen_, in this passage, is the same word uniformly
+rendered _servants_ elsewhere. To infer from this that the Gentile
+servants were slaves, is absurd. Look at the use of the Hebrew word
+"_Ebed_," the plural of which is here translated "_bondmen_." In Isaiah
+xlii. 1, the _same word_ is applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_
+(bondman, slave?) whom I have chosen, mine elect in whom my soul
+delighteth." So Isaiah lii. 13. "Behold my _servant_ (Christ) shall deal
+prudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it is applied to _King Rehoboam_. "And
+they (the old men) spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_
+(_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 _servants_
+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 _all_ 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 _Lord_
+and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah, and in respectful
+addresses not less than _fifty_ times in the Old Testament.
+
+If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, why had
+their language _no word_ that _meant slave_? If Abraham had thousands,
+and if they _abounded_ under the Mosaic system, why had they no such
+_word_ as slave or slavery? 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 "_Ebed_," yet he _"owned_" (!) twenty _Ebeds_. In
+_English_, we have both the words _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we
+have both the _things_, and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a
+sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but
+our dictionaries give us none. Why? because there is no such _thing_.
+But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _Ebed_
+if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. The servants of
+individuals among the heathen are scarcely ever alluded to. _National_
+servants or _tributaries_, are spoken of frequently, but so rarely are
+their _domestic_ servants alluded to, no necessity existed, even if they
+were slaves, for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being
+domestics, under _heathen laws and usages_, proclaimed their
+_liabilities_; their locality told their condition; so that in applying
+to them the word _Ebed_, there would be no danger of being
+misunderstood. But if the Israelites had not only _servants_, but
+besides these, a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning slave_, 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 _without_
+and the _within_, not of _persons_, but of _usages_. The fact that the
+Hebrew language had no words corresponding to _slave_ and _slavery_,
+though not a conclusive argument, is no slight corroborative.
+
+
+
+II. "FOREVER."--"They shall be your bondmen _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 _individual_ service, proclaims the _permanence_
+of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that
+their _permanent domestics_ should be of the _Strangers_, and not of the
+Israelites; and it declares the duration of that general provision. As
+if God had said, "You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ 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 of
+the Hebrew words, which, in our version, are translated, "_They shall be
+your bondmen forever_."
+
+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
+_heathen_ (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 _class_ of
+persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the
+_way_ in which they were to get them. That "_forever_" refers to the
+permanent relations of a _community_, rather than to the services of
+_individuals_, is a fair inference from the form of the expression,
+"THEY shall be your possession. Ye shall take _them_ as an inheritance
+for your children to inherit them for a possession." To say nothing of
+the uncertainty of _these individuals_ surviving those _after_ whom they
+are to live, the language used, applies more naturally to a _body_ of
+people, than to _individual_ servants.
+
+But suppose it otherwise; still _perpetual_ service could not be argued
+from the term _forever_. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter,
+limit it absolutely by the jubilee. "_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_ ALL _your
+land." "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty
+throughout all the land unto_ ALL _the inhabitants thereof_."
+
+It may be objected that "inhabitants" here means _Israelitish_
+inhabitants alone. The command is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the
+land unto ALL _the inhabitants thereof_." Besides, in the sixth verse,
+there is an enumeration of the different classes of the inhabitants, in
+which servants and strangers are included. "_And the Sabbath of the land
+shall be meet for_ YOU--[For whom? For you _Israelites_ only?]--_for
+thee, and for thy_ SERVANT, _and for thy maid, and for thy hired
+servant, and for thy_ STRANGER _that sojourneth with thee_."
+
+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
+_Jews_ only? Were they the 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
+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."
+_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 _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_. 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.
+
+Finally, even if _forever_ did refer to the length of _individual_
+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
+_Jewish_ servants were held, who refused to go out in the _seventh_
+year. And all admit that their term of service did not go beyond the
+jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17.
+
+The 23d verse of the same chapter is quoted to prove that "_forever_" in
+the 46th verse, extends beyond the jubilee. "_The land shall not be
+sold_ FOREVER, _for the land is mine_"--as it would hardly be used in
+different senses in the same general connection. In reply, we repeat
+that _forever_ respects the duration of the _general arrangement_, and
+not that of _individual service_. 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 _Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that
+may be. Whereas in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning _cutting
+off_, or _to be cut off_.
+
+
+
+III. "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 _nations_, and not to the _individual_
+servants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, that
+servants could not be held as a _property_-possession, and inheritance;
+that they became servants of their _own accord_, and were paid wages;
+that they were released by law from their regular labor nearly _half the
+days in each year_, and thoroughly _instructed_; that the servants were
+_protected_ 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 _just such a condition_! Alas, for
+that soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!"
+Truly, emphasis is cadence, and euphony and irony have met 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 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, _provided_ it sustains their
+practices.
+
+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 _articles of property_. _Nahal_ and
+_Nahala_--_inherit_ and _inheritance_. See 2 Chronicles x. 16. "The
+people answered the king and said, What portion have we in David, and we
+have none _inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." Did they mean gravely to
+disclaim the holding of their king as an article of _property?_ Psalms
+cxxvii. 3--"Lo, children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord."
+Exodus xxxiv. 9--"Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine
+_inheritance_." When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as his
+children, does he make them _articles of property?_ Are forgiveness, and
+chattel-making, synonymes? Psalms cxix. 111--"Thy testimonies have I
+taken as a _heritage_ (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 _inheritance_; _I_ am their
+_inheritance_." Psalms ii. 8--"Ask of me, and I will give thee the
+heathen for thine _inheritance_." Psalms xciv. 14--"For the Lord will
+not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his _inheritance_." See
+also Deuteronomy iv. 20; Joshua xiii. 33; Chronicles x. 16; Psalms
+lxxxii. 8, and lxxviii. 62, 71; Proverbs xiv. 8.
+
+The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY--"_possession_," has
+been already discussed--(See p. 36)--we need add in this place but a
+word. _Ahusa_ rendered "_possession_." Genesis xlii. 11--"And Joseph
+placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a _possession_ in the
+land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as
+Pharaoh had commanded."
+
+In what sense was the land of Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites?
+Answer, In the sense of, _having it to live in_. In what sense were the
+Israelites to _possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an
+_inheritance for their children?_ We 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--a national usage respecting them, having the certainty and
+regularity of a descent by inheritance_. 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 _them_ shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover
+of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_
+shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat
+in your land, and _they_ shall be your permanent resource," (for
+household servants.) "And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ provision
+for your children after you, to hold as a _constant source of supply_.
+ALWAYS _of them_ shall ye serve yourselves."
+
+
+
+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.
+
+From the fact that only _one_ class of the servants is called _hired_,
+it is sagely inferred that servants of the _other_ class were _not paid_
+for their labor. That is, that while God thundered anathemas against
+those who "used their neighbor's service _without wages_," 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 _strangers_ and the _common_ people. The inference
+that "_hired_" is synonimous with _paid_, and that those servants not
+_called_ "hired" were _not paid_ for their labor, is a _mere
+assumption_.
+
+The meaning of the English verb _to hire_, is, as every one knows, to
+procure for a temporary use at a curtain price--to engage a person to
+_temporary_ service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew
+word "_Saukar_." _Temporary_ service, and generally for a _specific_
+object, is inseparable from its meaning. It is never used when the
+procurement of _permanent_ service, for a long period, is spoken of.
+Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who constituted an
+integral and stationary part of the family, have been designated by the
+same term that marks _temporary_ 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 _regular_ work. Whatever is _occasional_ merely, as the washing
+of a family, is done by persons _hired expressly for the purpose_. In
+such families, the familiar distinction between the two classes, is
+"servants," or "domestics," and "hired help," (not _paid_ help.) _Both_
+classes are _paid_. One is permanent, the other occasional and
+temporary, and therefore in this case called "_hired_." To suppose a
+servant robbed of his earnings, because when spoken of, he is not called
+a _hired_ servant, is profound induction! If I employ a man at twelve
+dollars a month to work my farm, he is my _"hired"_ man, but if, instead
+of giving him so much a month, I _give him such a portion of the crop_,
+or in other words, if he works my farm _"on shares,"_ he is no longer my
+_hired_ man. Every farmer knows that _that_ 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 _hired_ laborer. Now, as the technic
+_"hired"_ 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 _"hired"_ laborer,
+I _rob_ 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.
+
+
+
+A variety of particulars are recorded in the Bible, distinguishing
+_hired_ from _bought_ 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. _"Bought"_ servants were paid in advance, (a reason for
+their being called, _bought_,) and those that went out at the seventh
+year received a _gratuity_ at the close of their period of service.
+Deut. xv. 12-13. (2.) The hired servant was paid _in money_, the bought
+servant received his _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and the
+product of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The _hired_ servant _lived
+by himself_, in his own family. The _bought_ servant was a part of his
+master's family. (4.) The _hired_ servant supported his family out of
+his wages; the _bought_ servant and his family, were supported by the
+master _besides_ his wages.
+
+
+
+A careful investigation of the condition of "_hired_" and of "_bought_"
+servants, shows that the latter were, _as a class, superior to the
+former_--were more trust-worthy, had greater privileges, and occupied in
+every respect (_other_ things being equal) a higher station in society.
+(1.) _They were intimately incorporated with the family of the master_.
+They were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which
+hired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Exod. xii. 43, 45. (2)
+_Their interests were far more identified with the general interests of
+their masters' family._ 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 _heir_, come let us kill him, _that the inheritance may be ours_."
+Luke xx. 14; also Mark xii. 7. In no instance on Bible record, does a
+_hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. (3.) _Marriages took place
+between servants and their master's daughters_. "Now Sheshan had no
+sons, but daughters: and Sheshan had a _servant_, 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 _hired_ servant
+forming such an alliance.
+
+(4.) _Bought servants and their descendants seem to have been regarded
+with the same affection and respect as the other members of the
+family[A]._ 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 _hired_ servants and their
+masters. Their untrustworthiness seems to have been proverbial. See John
+ix. 12, 13.
+
+None but the _lowest class_ 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.
+
+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 _hired_ servant thus distinguished. In some cases, the
+_bought_ 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 _himself_ 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,
+_for all the goods of his master were under his hand_." 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 _disposal of property_. 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 _discretionary_ power, was "accused of wasting his master's
+goods." and manifestly regulated with his master's debtors, the _terms_
+of settlement. Such trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.
+
+The inferior condition of _hired_ 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 _hired_ servants." It need not be remarked, that if
+_hired_ servants were the _superior_ 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
+_climbs_; 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, _the lowest place_, I can abide no
+other." Or in those inimitable words, "_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_ HIRED _servants_." The supposition that _hired_
+servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of
+winning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student of
+the Bible, that _one_ 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 _hired_ 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 _humility_, put it on stilts,
+and set it a strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in
+apeing it.
+
+Here let it be observed, that both Israelites and Strangers, belonged
+indiscriminately to _each_ class of the servants, the _bought_ and the
+_hired_. 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 _hired_ servants, has been already
+shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,
+merely _political_ and _national_, the hired servants from the
+_Israelites_, were more favored than either the hired, or the bought
+servants from the _Strangers_. 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].
+
+[Footnote A: Both classes may with propriety be called _permanent_
+servants; even the bought Israelite, when his six-years' service is
+contrasted with the brief term of the hired servant.]
+
+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.
+
+For various reasons, this class, (the servants bought from the
+Strangers,) would prefer a _long_ 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 _possession_ of
+one's inheritance, _after_ the division of the paternal domain, or to be
+restrained from its _control_, 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], 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 _Stranger_ to _prolong_ 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.
+
+[Footnote 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 _graduated_ 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 _becoming servants_
+proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the labor of _a
+course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]
+
+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 _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 _permanent employment_,
+pursued not merely as a _means_ of bettering their own condition, and
+prospectively that of their posterity, but also, as an _end_ for its own
+sake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not
+otherwise attainable.
+
+We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are
+called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_, as our
+translators have it.) (1.) They followed it as a _permanent business_.
+(2.) Their term of service was _much longer_ 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 _tributaries_ to the Israelites--required to pay an annual tribute
+to the government, either in money, or in public service, which was
+called a "_tribute of bond-service_;" in other words, all the Strangers
+were _national servants_, to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word
+which is used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates
+_national_ 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 _kinds_ of service
+assigned to each class. The servants from the Strangers, were properly
+the _domestics_, 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 _agricultural_. 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, "_And behold Saul came after the herd
+out of the field_."--1 Sam. xi. 7.
+
+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, _was "threshing wheat_
+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 _protected and supported by the fundamental law_
+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 _Jewish_
+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 _unjew_ 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.
+
+_To guard this and another fundamental distinction_, God instituted the
+regulation contained in Leviticus xxv. 39, 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 _servants'
+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 _servitude_," (or _menial_ labor.) In the Septuagint
+thus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a _domestic or
+household servant_." 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]." In fine,
+"thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," means, _thou
+shalt not assign him to the same grade, nor put him to the same
+services, with permanent domestics._
+
+[Footnote 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."]
+
+We pass to the remainder of the regulation in the 40th verse:--
+
+"_But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with thee_."
+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 _keeping back their wages_.
+
+To have taken away these privileges in the case stated in the passage
+under consideration, would have been preeminent _rigor_; 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 _assignment_ of his inheritance, but was, as a servant,
+working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its possession
+and control[A]. But it was that of _the head of a family_, 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
+_Israelite--Abraham is his father_, 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 _grade_ of service filled only by those whose
+permanent business was _serving_, would have been to _rule over him with
+peculiar rigor_.
+
+[Footnote A: These two latter classes are evidently referred to in Exod.
+xxi. 1-6, and Deut. xv. 12]
+
+Finally, the former part of the regulation, "Thou shalt not compel him
+to serve as a bond-servant," or more literally, _thou shall not serve
+thyself with him, with the service of a servant_, 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 _hired_ 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 _bought_ 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 _alleviate_ as
+much as possible the calamity which had reduced him from independence
+and authority, to penury and subjection.
+
+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. "_Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear
+thy God_." 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, _irrespective_ 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 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, _rigorous_ 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.
+
+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 _social_ estimation, in which this class of
+servants was held. They were regarded according to their character and
+worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin, employments,
+and political condition.
+
+The common construction put upon the expression, "_rule with rigor_,"
+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
+_Israelites, it permitted and commissioned_ the infliction of them upon
+the _Strangers_. 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!
+
+In Exodus, chap. i. 13, 14, it is said that the Egyptians "made the
+children of Israel to _serve_ with rigor," "and all their _service_
+wherein they made them _serve_, was with rigor." The rigor here spoken
+of, is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted from them, and the
+_mode_ of the exaction. This form of expression, "_serve with rigor_,"
+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. _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 national and political disabilities as the
+latter.
+
+
+
+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 _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. All were released
+from their regular labor 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 _men_, with the
+rights, interests, hopes, and destinies of _men_. In these respects the
+circumstances of _all_ classes of servants among the Israelites, were
+not only similar but _identical_, and so far forth, they formed but ONE
+CLASS.
+
+II. DIFFERENT CLASSES OF SERVANTS.
+
+1. _Hired Servants_.--This class consisted both of Israelites and
+Strangers. Their employments were different. The _Israelite_, was an
+agricultural servant. The Stranger was a _domestic_ and _personal_
+servant, and in some instances _mechanical_; both were _occasional_,
+procured _temporally_ to serve an emergency. Both lived in their own
+families, their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work
+was done. As a _class of servants_, the hired were less loved, trusted,
+honored and promoted than any other.
+
+2. _Bought Servants, (including those "born in the house.")_--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], and neither was temporary.
+
+[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, 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.]
+
+The Israelitish servant, in most instances, was released after six
+years. (The _freeholder_ continued until the jubilee.) The Stranger, was
+a _permanent_ 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 _one_ class of the Jewish bought servants was a
+marked exception. The _freeholder_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+I. It should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the
+Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal natural and
+religious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed
+by those of their own people, who were _not_ 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 _Israelitish_ servants, _were theirs_. 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.
+
+
+
+II. The disabilities of the servants from the Strangers, were
+exclusively _political_ and _national_.
+
+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 prosperity and even to the existence of the state,
+other employments were in far less repute, and deemed _unjewish_.
+
+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 _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_.
+
+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--_all were protected equally with the
+descendants of Abraham._
+
+
+
+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 _descendant of Abraham_ and a _Stranger_, 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, _"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."_ In this case, the Israelitish servant, whose term
+expired in six years, married one of his master's _permanent female
+domestics_; but the fact of her marriage, did not release her master
+from _his_ 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 _grade_ and _term_ of service. Her
+marriage did not impair her obligation to fulfil _her_ 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 _their_ 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.
+
+
+
+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
+_death_, and at the same time to perpetual _slavery_, 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, _be it remembered_, the Mosaic law was given, while Israel was _in
+the wilderness_, and only _one_ statute was ever given respecting _the
+disposition to be made of the inhabitants of the land._ If the sentence
+of death was first pronounced against them, and afterwards _commuted_,
+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 _enslave_ 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 _man_--intelligent
+accountable, guilty _man,_ 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 _slave,_
+cheapens to nothing _universal human nature,_ and instead of healing a
+wound, gives a death stab. What! repair an injury done to rational being
+in the robbery of _one_ of its rights, not merely by robbing it of
+_all,_ but by annihilating the very _foundation_ of them--that
+everlasting distinction between men and things? To make a man a chattel,
+is not the _punishment,_ but the _annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and,
+so far as it goes, of _all_ 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
+_doctrines_.
+
+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 _individuals,_ or merely of the _body politic?_ Ans.
+The Hebrew word _Haram,_ to destroy, signifies _national,_ as well as
+individual destruction; _political_ existence, equally with _personal;_
+the destruction of governmental organization, equally with the lives of
+the subjects. Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume,
+overthrow, &c., to mean _personal_ 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?
+
+For a clue to the sense in which the word _"destroy"_ is used, see
+Exodus xxiii. 27. "I will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt
+come, and I will make all thine enemies _turn their backs unto thee_."
+Here "_all their enemies_" were to _turn their backs_, and "_all the
+people_" to be "_destroyed_". Does this mean that God would let all
+their _enemies_ escape, but kill all their _friends_, or that he would
+_first_ kill "all the people" and THEN make them turn their backs in
+flight, an army of runaway corpses?
+
+The word rendered _backs_, is in the original, _necks_, and the passage
+_may_ mean, I will make all your enemies turn their necks unto you; that
+is, be _subject to you as tributaries_, become _denationalized_, their
+civil polity, state organization, political existence,
+_destroyed_--their idolatrous temples, altars, images, groves, and all
+heathen rites _destroyed_; in a word, their whole system, national,
+political, civil, and religious, subverted, and the whole people _put
+under tribute_. Again; if these commands required the unconditional
+destruction of all the _individuals_ 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 _stranger or a sojourner_, that he may
+live with thee." "Thou shalt not oppress a _stranger_." "Thou shalt not
+vex a _stranger_." "Judge righteously between every, man and his
+brother, and the _stranger_ that is with him." "Ye shall not respect
+persons in judgement." "Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the
+_stranger_, 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 _same law_ authorize and appoint the _individual
+extermination_ of those very persons, whose lives and general interests
+it so solicitously protects? These laws were given to the Israelites,
+long _before_ they entered Canaan; and they must of necessity have
+inferred from them, that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land
+would _continue in it_, under their government.
+
+3. _We argue that these commands did not require the_ INDIVIDUAL
+_destruction of the Canaanites unconditionally, from the fact that the
+most pious Israelites never seem to have so regarded them._ 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. For not obeying, in
+_every particular,_ and in a _single_ instance, God's command respecting
+the Amalekites, Saul was rejected from being king.
+
+Now, if God commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaanitish
+nations, Joshua _disobeyed him in every instance._ For at his death, the
+Israelites still _"dwelt among them,"_ 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 _stood not a man_ of _all_ their enemies
+before them." "The Lord delivered _all their_ enemies into their hand,"
+&c.
+
+How can this testimony be reconciled with itself, if we suppose that the
+command to _destroy_ enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the
+command to _drive out_, enjoined the unconditional expulsion of
+individuals from the country, rather than their expulsion from the
+_possession_ or _ownership_ 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]. 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
+_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
+the performance of idolatrous rites, the _military forces_, 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 _tributaries_ 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[B]. 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 _utterly destroy_ 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 _utterly destroyed_ the Amalekites."
+
+[Footnote 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 _exterminate all the Canaanites,_
+their pledge to save them alive, was neither a repeal of the statute,
+nor absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ 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 _had_ passed their
+word to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding upon them than
+God's command? So Saul seems to have passed _his_ 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 _remaining in any of the coasts of Israel_
+let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. 2 Samuel xxii. 1-6.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+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 _all been_ UTTERLY
+DESTROYED!
+
+Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be quoted against the preceding view.
+"_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_." We argue that this
+command to exterminate, did not include all the individuals of the
+Canaanitish nations, but only the inhabitants of the _cities_, (and even
+those conditionally,) for the following reasons.
+
+I. Only the inhabitants of _cities_ are specified,--"of the _cities_ 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,--"_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 _around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God permitted, and
+even commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact
+with _any_ of them would be perilous--with the inhabitants of the
+_cities_ peculiarly, and of the _Canaanitish_ cities preeminently so.
+
+It will be seen from the 10th and 11th verses, that those cities which
+accepted the offer of peace were to be spared. "_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_
+TRIBUTARIES _unto thee, and they shall_ SERVE thee."--Deuteronomy xx.
+10, 11. These verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in
+which cities were to be summoned to surrender.
+
+1. The offer of peace--if it was accepted, the inhabitants became
+_tributaries_--if it was rejected, and they came out against Israel in
+battle, the _men_ 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 _afar off_. 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
+_whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with the 10th verse,
+whereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the
+verses immediately preceding, viz. the 12th, 13th, and 14th, and thus
+make a distinction between those _Canaanitish_ cities that _fought_, and
+the cities _afar off_ that fought--in one case destroying the males and
+females, and in the other, the _males_ only. The offer of peace, and the
+_conditional preservation_, were as really guarantied to _Canaanitish_
+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_." Joshua xix. 19, 20.--"_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_." That is, if they had _not_ come out against Israel in
+battle, they would have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been
+"_destroyed utterly_"
+
+The great design of God seems to have been to _transfer the territory_
+of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute
+sovereignty in every respect_; 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]; 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.
+"_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;_ THEN SHALL THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY
+PEOPLE."
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+[The preceding Inquiry is merely an _outline_. Whoever _reads_ 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 _indices_, 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.]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+No. 4.
+
+
+
+THE
+
+
+ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+THE
+
+
+BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+
+
+AN INQUIRY INTO THE
+
+
+
+PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS
+
+
+ON THE SUBJECT OF
+
+HUMAN RIGHTS.
+
+Third Edition--Revised.
+
+
+NEW YORK:
+
+PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.
+
+1838.
+
+This periodical contains 5 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 7 1-2 cts;
+over 100 miles, 12 1-2 cts.
+
+_Please read and circulate._
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+    DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,
+
+
+        Negative,
+
+        Affirmative,
+
+        Legal,
+
+
+    THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY
+
+
+        "Thou shalt not steal,"
+
+        "Thou shalt not covet,"
+
+
+    MAN-STEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,
+
+
+        Separation of man from brutes and things,
+
+
+    IMPORT OF "BUY" AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY,"
+
+
+        Servants sold themselves,
+
+
+    RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SERVANTS,
+
+    SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY,
+
+
+        Runaway Servants not to be delivered to their Masters,
+
+
+    SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES,
+
+    MASTERS NOT "OWNERS,"
+
+
+        Servants not subjected to the uses of property,
+
+        Servants expressly distinguished from property,
+
+        Examination of Gen. xii. 5.--"The souls that they had
+        gotten," &c.
+
+        Social equality of Servants and Masters,
+
+        Condition of the Gibeonites as subjects of the Hebrew
+        Commonwealth,
+
+        Egyptian Bondage analyzed,
+
+
+    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+    "CURSED BE CANAAN," &c.--EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,
+
+    "FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &c.--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 20, 21,
+
+    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44-46,
+
+
+        "Both thy BONDMEN, &c., shall be of the heathen,"
+
+        "They shall be your bondmen FOREVER,"
+
+        "Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE," &c.
+
+
+    EXAMINATION OF LEV. XXV. 39, 40.--THE FREEHOLDER NOT TO "SERVE
+    AS A BOND SERVANT,"
+
+
+        Difference between Hired and Bought Servants,
+
+        Bought Servants the most favored and honored class,
+
+        Israelites and Strangers belonged to both classes,
+
+        Israelites servants to the Strangers,
+
+        Reasons for the release of the Israelitish Servants in
+        the seventh year,
+
+        Reasons for assigning the Strangers to a longer service,
+
+        Reasons for calling them _the_ Servants,
+
+        Different kinds of service assigned to the Israelites
+        and Strangers,
+
+
+    REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF
+    EACH,
+
+
+        Political disabilities of the Strangers,
+
+
+    EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2-6.--"IF THOU BUY AN HEBREW SERVANT,"
+
+    THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION,
+
+
+
+
+
+THE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+
+
+DEFINITION OF SLAVERY.
+
+If we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must determine
+_what slavery is_. A constituent 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. 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.
+
+1. _Privation of suffrage._ Then minors are slaves.
+
+2. _Ineligibility to office._ Then females are slaves.
+
+3. _Taxation without representation._ Then slaveholders in the District
+of Columbia are slaves.
+
+4. _Privation of one's oath in law._ Then disbelievers in a future
+retribution are slaves.
+
+5. _Privation of trial by jury._ Then all in France and Germany are
+slaves.
+
+6. _Being required to support a particular religion._ Then the people of
+England are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all other
+disabilities, merely _political_.]
+
+7. _Cruelty and oppression._ Wives, children, and hired domestics are
+often oppressed; but these forms of cruelty are not slavery.
+
+8. _Apprenticeship._ The rights and duties of master and apprentice are
+correlative and reciprocal. The claim of each upon the other results
+from his _obligation_ 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
+_just_ to the master, it is _benevolent_ 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 _right_ 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 _equally_ 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?
+
+9. _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 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.
+
+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 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 _property_ be guilty? Are chattels
+punished?
+
+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 society, warp and woof. Are they slavery? then
+civilized society is a giant slave--a government of LAW, _the climax of
+slavery,_ and its executive, a king among slaveholders.
+
+12. _Compulsory service._ A juryman is empannelled against his will, and
+sit he must. A sheriff orders his posse; bystanders _must_ turn in. Men
+are _compelled_ 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 _condition_. The slave's
+_feelings_ 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 _make_ him a chattel, or make those
+guiltless who _hold_ 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
+_consent_ 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.
+
+Many of the foregoing conditions are _appendages_ of slavery. But no
+one, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging
+element.
+
+We proceed to state affirmatively that, ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM
+TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY--making free agents, chattels--converting
+_persons_ into _things_--sinking immortality, into _merchandize_. A
+_slave_ is one held in this condition. In law, "he owns nothing, and can
+acquire nothing." His right to himself is abrogated. If he say _my_
+hands, _my_ feet, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY _self_, they are figures of
+speech. To use _himself_ for his own good, is a CRIME. To keep what he
+_earns_, is stealing. To take his body into his own keeping, is
+_insurrection_. In a word, the _profit_ of his master is made the END of
+his being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end--a _mere means_ to an end
+into which his interests do not enter, of which they constitute no
+portion[A]. MAN, sunk to a _thing!_ the intrinsic element, the
+_principle_ of slavery; MEN, bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed,
+invoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on executions, and
+knocked off at public outcry! Their _rights_, 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, _the reduction of persons to things;_ not
+robbing a man of privileges, but of _himself_; not loading with burdens,
+but making him a _beast of burden_; not _restraining_ liberty, but
+subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them; not
+inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not
+exacting involuntary labor, but sinking him into an _implement_ 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 _thing_!
+
+[Footnote A: Whatever system sinks men from an END to a mere _means_,
+just so far makes him a _slave_. 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 _mere means_, a _slave_. 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.]
+
+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 _things_--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.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+Having stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE
+BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A] "To the _law_ and the _testimony_?"
+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.
+_Two_ 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 _him_. That they are _his own_, is proved
+from the fact that God has given them to _him alone_,--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 _use_ 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
+_use_. The right to use according to will, is _itself_ 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 _relative_ to this, is
+derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the
+_foundation right_--the _post is the middle_, 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 _a man belongs to himself_--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 _man_ 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 _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of
+_his own_; and yet in the act of making a man a slave, the slaveholder
+_asserts_ the validity of his own title, while he seizes him as his
+property who has the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he
+does not merely disfranchise the humanity of _one_ individual, but of
+UNIVERSAL MAN. He destroys the foundations. He annihilates _all rights_.
+He attacks not only the human race, but _universal being_, and rushes
+upon JEHOVAH. For rights are _rights_; God's are no more--man's are no
+less.
+
+[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral
+character. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records
+without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob
+and his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and
+concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent
+entry_ God's _endorsement_? Because the Bible in its catalogue of human
+actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write
+against it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach
+into a virtue?]
+
+The eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any part_ of that which
+belongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which
+prohibits the taking of _any_ thing from him, sanction the taking of
+_every_ thing? Does it thunder wrath against him who robs his neighbor
+of a _cent_, yet bid God speed to him who robs his neighbor of
+_himself_? Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the eighth
+commandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to take the
+_earner_, 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 _tenth_ adds, "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 _tempt_ to
+it. Who ever made human beings slaves, without _coveting_ 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 _desire_ 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.--_Ten_ commandments constitute the brief compend of
+human duty.--_Two_ of these brand slavery as sin.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+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--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. _"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.
+Deut. xxiv. 7[A]. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance
+to the Mosaic system!
+
+[Footnote 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, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_,
+the person compelling him but once to do so shall die as a thief,
+whether he has sold him or not."]
+
+The word _Ganabh_ here rendered _stealeth_, means the taking what
+_belongs_ to another, whether by violence or fraud; the same word is
+used in the eighth commandment, and prohibits both _robbery_ and theft.
+
+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
+_servant, not_ "he that stealeth a _man_." If the crime had been the
+taking an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have
+been expressive of that relation, and most especially if it was the
+relation of property and _proprietor_!
+
+The crime is stated in a three-fold form--man _stealing_, _selling_, and
+_holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one penalty--DEATH.
+This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of a man, is the _man
+himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said, "Indeed I was
+_stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. How
+_stolen?_ His brethren sold him as an article of merchandize. Contrast
+this penalty for _man_-stealing with that for _property_-stealing, Ex.
+xxii. If a man had stolen an _ox_ 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 _man_, the _first_ 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
+_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-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 _property value_ 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 branding,
+nor even _stripes_, but double of _the same kind._ Why was not the rule
+uniform? When a _man_ 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 _have_ them? So the
+ox-thief might not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, five. But if
+God permitted men to hold _men_ 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 _man_ 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 _money!_ 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, 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."
+
+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 _that_ 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 _property,_ by putting him on a level with it?
+
+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 _nature_ of the article
+but in shifting its relation from him to me. But when I take my neighbor
+himself, and first make him _property_, and then _my_ 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
+_personality_ into _property_. 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 _nature_ 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 _parent,_ it struck the smiter dead. The parental relation is the
+_centre_ of human society. God guards it with peculiar care. To violate
+that, is to violate all. Whoever trampled on that, 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.
+
+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. "_Honor thy father and thy mother_," 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 _man_, but a _parent_--a _distinction_
+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 _immortal nature,_ blotting out a sacred _distinction_,
+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.
+
+"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, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD,
+CREATED HE HIM. 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,
+"_Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for_ 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.)
+"_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels._" Slavery drags him
+down among _brutes_. (2.) "_And hast crowned him with glory and honor._"
+Slavery tears off his crown, and puts on a _yoke_. (3.) "_Thou madest
+him to have dominion_ OVER _the works of thy hands._" Slavery breaks the
+sceptre, and casts him down _among_ those works--yea _beneath them_.
+(4.) "_Thou hast put all things under his feet._" 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, "_Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it
+unto_ ME."
+
+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 _legal_ forms of Divine
+institutions previously existing. As a _system_, the latter alone is of
+Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs, God has
+not made them our exemplars[A].
+
+[Footnote 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 _concubinage_,
+winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, 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.]
+
+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.
+
+
+
+IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY."
+
+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 the terms
+themselves. How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be
+proved were always _assumed_. 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 _now_ used is the _inspired_ sense, David says, "I prevented
+the dawning of the morning, and cried." What, stop the earth in its
+revolution! Two hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in its strict
+Latin sense to _come before_, or _anticipate_. 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
+_opposite_ to their present meaning. A few examples follow: "I purposed
+to come to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the four
+_beasts_ (living ones) fell down and worshipped God,"--"Whosoever shall
+_offend_ (cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--"Go out into the
+highways and _compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--"Only let your
+_conversation_ (habitual conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,"--"They
+that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me,"--"So when tribulation
+or persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (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 _now_. 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 _now_, they _must_
+have been in Canaan and Padanaram four thousand years ago!
+
+The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of
+servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the
+fallacy, that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or
+whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of
+your paying for it _proves_ 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 _buy_ is still used to
+describe the transaction. Does this prove that their first-born were, or
+are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really as were _servants_.
+(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 _bought_ their
+wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "So Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon,
+have I _purchased_ to be my wife." Ruth iv. 10. Hosea bought his wife.
+"So I _bought_ 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 _real_ 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 _medium_ 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 _wives_, their
+husbands and masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3,
+27. If _buying_ servants proves them property, buying wives proves them
+property. 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? 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."
+
+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 _marriages_ in the old German
+Chronicles was, "A BOUGHT B."
+
+The word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the nature
+of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, "I have _gotten_
+(bought) a man of the Lord." She named him Cain, that is _bought_. "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 _buy_)
+the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. "He brought them to this
+mountain which his right hand had _purchased_," (gotten.) Jer. xiii. 4.
+"Take the girdle that thou hast got" (bought.) Neh. v. 8. "We of our
+ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren that were sold to the
+heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons reduced to
+servitude, but to those taken _out_ of it. Prov. 8. 22. "The Lord
+possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way." Prov. xix. 8. "He
+that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Finally, to _buy_
+is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word _Kana_.
+
+Even at this day the word _buy_ 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
+"_bought_" 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 _indenture_ in Illinois, servants
+now are "_bought._"[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" _out_ 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 _bought_ him." Sir
+Robert Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it,
+can _buy_ him," and John Randolph said, "The northern delegation is in
+the market, give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them;" both meant just
+what they said. The temperance publications tell us that candidates for
+office _buy_ men with whiskey; and the oracles of street tattle that the
+court, district attorney, and jury, in the late trial of Robinson were
+_bought_, yet we have no floating visions of "chattels personal," man
+auctions, or coffles.
+
+[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the free state of
+Illinois--No negro, mulatto, or Indian shall at any time _purchase_ any
+servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the persons
+aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such servant
+shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and taken.]
+
+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 _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain
+that neither party regarded the persons _bought_ 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 _value
+received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft of their
+personal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of
+_services_ (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in
+Scripture usage, _buying the persons_. 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," _sold themselves_, and
+of their own accord. (2.) Obtaining permanently the _services_ 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 _third_ persons; and thence infers that they were articles of
+property. Both the alleged fact and the inference are sheer
+_assumptions_. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in
+which a _master sold his servant_. That servants who were "bought" _sold
+themselves_ is a fair inference from various passages of Scripture.
+
+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 _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word, which, in verse 47, is
+rendered _sell himself_, is in verse 39 of the same chapter, rendered
+_be sold_; 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 "_be sold_" without
+_being bought_? Our translation makes it nonsense. The word _Makar_
+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 _offer yourselves_ 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 _sold thyself_ to work evil." "There was
+none like to Ahab that _sold himself_ to work wickedness."--2 Kings
+xvii. 17. "They used divination and enchantments, and _sold themselves_
+to do evil."--Isa. l. 1. "For your iniquities have ye _sold
+yourselves_." Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have _sold yourselves_ 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 _third_ persons. If _servants_
+were bought of third persons, it is strange that no _instance_ of it is
+on record.
+
+
+
+II.--THE LEADING DESIGN OF THE LAWS RELATING TO SERVANTS, WITH THE
+RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO THEM.
+
+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
+_servants_. While the master's interests were guarded from injury, those
+of the servants were _promoted_. 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 _privileges_ and
+_favors_.
+
+I. No servant from the Strangers, could remain in the family of an
+Israelite without becoming a proselyte. Compliance with this condition
+was the _price of the privilege_.--Gen. xvii. 9-14, 23, 27.
+
+II. Excommunication from the family was a PUNISHMENT.--Gen. xxi. 14.
+Luke xvi. 2-4.
+
+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 _demanded_ it, the law
+_obliged_ the master to retain him, however little he might need his
+services. Deut. xv. 12-17. Ex. xxi. 2-6.
+
+IV. The rights and privileges guarantied by law to all servants.
+
+1. _They were admitted into covenant with God._ Deut. xxix. 10-13.
+
+2. _They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals._
+Ex. xii. 43-44; Deut. xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16.
+
+3. _They were statedly instructed in morality and religion._ Deut. xxxi.
+10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35; 2 Chron. xvii. 8-9.
+
+4. _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.
+
+(a.) The Law secured to them the _whole of every seventh year;_ Lev.
+xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who were servants during the entire
+period between the jubilees, _eight whole years,_ including the jubilee
+year, of unbroken rest.
+
+(b.) _Every seventh day._ This in forty-two years, the eight being
+subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just _six years._
+
+(c.) _The three annual festivals._ The _Passover_, 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 _festival week_, 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 _nine weeks
+annually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the
+Sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.
+
+(d.) _The new moons._ The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says that the
+Jews always kept _two_ 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.
+
+(e.) _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and
+of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.
+
+(f.) _The atonement day_. On the tenth of the seventh month. Lev. xxiii.
+27.
+
+These two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not
+reckoned above.
+
+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 _fractions_ to the
+objector, we have left out those numerous _local_ festivals to which
+frequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; I Sam. ix. etc., and the
+various _family_ 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.
+
+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 _every day_, the
+servants would have to themselves nearly _one half of each day_.
+
+THIS IS A REGULATION OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY
+SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.
+
+V. The servant was protected by law equally with the other members of
+the community.
+
+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."
+
+VI. The Mosaic system enjoined the greatest affection and kindness
+toward servants, foreign as well as Jewish.
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+
+
+III.--DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE THEY MADE
+SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?
+
+We argue that they became servants _of their own accord_.
+
+I. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to
+abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God[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 _forced_ through all these processes?
+Was the renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into
+covenant with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_?
+Were they _compelled_ 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 _driven_
+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 _servant_, was to become a
+_proselyte_. 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 _merchandise_? Were _proselyte and chattel_ synonymes, in the
+Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into
+covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and
+the sole passport to the communion of the saints?
+
+[Footnote 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."
+
+"But he that is in the _house_ 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 _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown
+slave, and he be _unwilling_, 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 _refuse_ 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.
+
+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
+_full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his
+expenses. But that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign
+servant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of
+an Israelite), of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a
+mere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic
+system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_.
+Whether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes
+not within the scope of this inquiry. ]
+
+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."
+
+As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the
+_right_ of the master to hold him; his _fleeing_ shows his
+_choice_--proclaims his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall
+not force him back and thus recognize the _right_ 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 _heathen_ 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 _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the
+heathen, and yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice
+of _thousands_ of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A _foreign_
+servant flees to the Israelites; God says, "He shall dwell with thee, in
+that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it _liketh
+him_ best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming into
+Israel of his own accord, had been _dragged_ 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
+_voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the _same_ treatment of the
+_same person_, 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 _begin_ the violence
+_after_ he has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_ on the
+_other side of the line_; 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 _greater_ 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 _him_, uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and
+kindness denied to the multitudes who _were_ circumcised, and _within_
+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
+_master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was
+not, "Thou shalt not deliver him unto his _master_," but "he shall dwell
+with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_ in one of thy gates
+where it liketh _him_ best." Every Israelite was forbidden to put him in
+any condition _against his will_. What was this but a proclamation, that
+all who _chose_ 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 _foreign_ servants merely,
+there was no law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from
+the _Israelites_. _Property_ lost, and _cattle_ 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 _free choice_, 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 _own choice_, as to the place and
+condition of his residence, it is _oppression_."
+
+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
+"_slaves_" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a body of
+slaves is moved any distance in our _republic_, they are hand-cuffed and
+chained together, to keep them from running away, or beating their
+drivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ 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 _handmaids_
+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.
+
+IV. Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance
+of various rites necessarily VOLUNTARY.
+
+Suppose the servants from the heathen had upon entering Jewish families,
+refused circumcision; if _slaves_, how simple the process of
+emancipation! Their _refusal_ 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;" _excommunicated_.
+
+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 _young men_ "born in his house," and many more _not_ 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 _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
+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," _provided_ they had a description
+of the "flesh-marks," and were suitably stimulated by _pieces of
+silver_. 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.
+
+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 _no servants_. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 16. They
+doubtless, served under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into
+Egypt, they _chose_ to stay in their own country. The government might
+sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until their services had made
+good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex. xxii. 3. But _masters_
+seem to have had no power to sell their _servants_. To give the master a
+_right_ 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 _buy_ a servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of
+choice_." 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 _another_ man[A].
+
+[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose
+even the _services_ 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.]
+
+Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were
+bought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ 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."[B]
+
+[Footnote B: 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."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, 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 _money of her purchase_ is the money of her
+espousal."]
+
+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 _choice_ 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 _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to get
+rid of him.
+
+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 _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false
+pretences, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to
+buy them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the
+individuals to _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to
+_refuse all offers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their
+own work_. Suppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become
+servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency?
+NONE.
+
+[Footnote 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, _stands by itself,_ and has nothing to do with the
+condition of servants.]
+
+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?"
+
+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 _bodies_ and
+our lands; _buy us_;" then in the 25th verse, "we will be servants to
+Pharaoh."
+
+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.
+
+XII. The sacrifices and offerings which ALL were required to present,
+were to be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3.
+
+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 _master_. 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.
+
+
+
+IV.--WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?
+
+As the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it
+would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their
+becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they
+_were paid_ for their labor, we argue,
+
+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 _Rea_, translated _neighbor_, 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.
+
+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 _verbatim_ 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! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others
+as we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ 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."
+
+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 _redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been
+forced to sell himself from poverty, he must have acquired considerable
+property _after_ 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]) 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[B]. 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 _owner of a house_. 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
+_servants_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the
+_relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and _now_, yet we have enough to
+warrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value
+_then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing
+a large amount of money? They "_know how to take care of themselves_"
+quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on
+such a _small_ scale, or in the taking of _such things_ 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 _proficients_ in the art, who drive the
+business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their
+betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at
+a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ 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 _Right_ and _Very
+Reverends_! 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
+_situation_, 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 _slay_ one who
+would slay him?"]
+
+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 _husbandmen_ 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?
+
+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 _acquiring_ property to meet these expenditures.
+
+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]." 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 _Israelitish_ servants,
+the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they did not go out in the
+seventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. If the fact that the
+Gentile servants did not receive such a _gratuity_ proves that they were
+robbed of their _earnings_, it proves that the most valued class of
+_Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs also; a conclusion too stubborn
+for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous.
+
+[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as
+follows--"Thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c. "That is to say,
+'_Loading, ye shall load him_,' 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 _you, not
+less than thirty shekels_, which is the valuation of a servant, as
+declared in Ex. xxi. 32."--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec. 3]
+
+VII. The servants were BOUGHT. In other words, they received
+compensation in advance. Having shown, under a previous head, that
+servants _sold themselves_, 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[B], a mere reference to the fact is all
+that is required for the purposes of this argument.
+
+[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and
+boys at thirteen years.]
+
+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.
+
+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 "_do justice_" to others? By doing
+injustice to them? Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by
+keeping back _their own_? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy
+of his hire" by robbing them of _theirs_? 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 _Aristides_ in justice, then illustrious examples,
+patriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway
+against human perverseness!
+
+X. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles_.
+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 _particular_ kind of
+service, _all_ kinds; and a law requiring an abundant provision for the
+wants of an animal ministering to man in a _certain_ 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 a brute_, what would be a meet return for the
+services of _man_?--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?
+
+
+V.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY?
+
+The discussion of this topic has already been somewhat anticipated, but
+a variety of additional considerations remain to be noticed.
+
+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 _servants_ were taken in _no instance_. (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 _not_. 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 _gifts_. 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 _articles of property_, 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 _religion_--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!" "Again, it may be
+objected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If
+that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ 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 _mere property_ if servants are included, it is in such a way, as to
+show that they are not regarded as _property_. See Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But
+when the design is to show not merely the wealth, but the _greatness_ of
+any personage, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word,
+if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if
+_greatness_, 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 _riches_ 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
+_mere property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the
+former. The Hebrew word _Mikne_, is an illustration. It is derived from
+_Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, _a possession, wealth,
+riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament, and is
+applied always to _mere property_, generally to domestic animals, but
+never to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in
+distinction from the _Mikne_.  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 _souls_
+were a part of Abraham's _substance_ (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 "_the souls that they had
+gotten_?" 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] 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[B]. "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."
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+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 _both_ 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
+_servant_ 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 _chiefest
+seat_ at the table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of Kish, Saul's
+father; not the steward or the chief of them--not at all a _picked_ man,
+but "_one_ of the servants;" _any_ 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.
+
+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.) _It was voluntary_. 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.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of
+the Israelites_. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated
+their own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the
+functions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were
+subject to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. 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 _at home_. 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 _national tribute_ to the Israelites, for the
+privilege of residence and protection under their government. No service
+seems to have been required of the _females_. 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 _them_ to the condition of chattels if there was _any_ case
+in which God permitted them to do so.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) The Israelites were not dispersed among
+the families of Egypt[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[B]. Gen.
+xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27. (3.) They lived
+in permanent dwellings. These were _houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 6,
+22, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_, and the lintel of
+the houses are mentioned. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by
+itself_,--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 _tributary_ 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 _there_ 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 _at any one time_. 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 _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_) they
+exacted it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that labor
+was exacted only from the _poorer_ 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[C]! their _only_ clothing for one half the year,
+"_one_ shirt and _one_ pair of pantaloons[D]!" _two hours and a half
+only_, for rest and refreshment in the twenty-four[E]!--their dwellings,
+_hovels_, 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 _all_ their rights, while he
+denounced against them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the
+_far lighter_ 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 _Lawgiver_
+did he _create_ 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?"
+
+[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ servants living in
+their families; these may have been slaves; allusion is made to them in
+Ex. ix. 14, 20, 21.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote C: Law of N.C. Haywood's Manual 524-5.]
+
+
+[Footnote D: Law of La. Martin's Digest, 610.]
+
+
+[Footnote E: Law of La. Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12.]
+
+We now proceed to examine various objections which will doubtless be set
+in array against all the foregoing conclusions.
+
+
+OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+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 _cause_ 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 _Cain-mark_, 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?
+
+
+
+OBJECTION 1. "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto
+his brethren." Gen. ix. 25.
+
+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 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, _assume_ all the
+points in debate. (1.) That _slavery_ was prophesied rather than mere
+_service_ to others, and _individual_ bondage rather than _national_
+subjection and tribute. (2.) That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_
+it; at least absolving those whose crimes fulfill it, if not
+transforming the crimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharoahs might
+have quoted the prophecy _"Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that
+is not theirs, and they shall afflict there four hundred years."_ And
+then, what _saints_ 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 _named_ 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 "_younger_ son" can not be _Canaan_, as he
+was the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham._ We answer,
+whoever that "_younger son_" was, _Canaan_ alone was named in the curse.
+Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies son, grandson, or _any_ of
+_one_ the posterity of an individual. "_Know ye Laban the SON of
+Nahor?_" Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxix. 5. "_Mephibosheth
+the SON of Saul_." 2 Sam. xix. 24. Mephibosheth was the _grandson_ of
+Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. "_There is a SON born to Naomi._" Ruth iv. 17. This
+was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. "_Let seven men of
+his (Saul's) SONS be delivered unto us._" 2 Sam. xxi. 6. Seven of Saul's
+_grandsons_ were delivered up. "_Laban rose up and kissed his SONS._"
+Gen. xxi. 55. These were his _grandsons_. "_The driving of Jehu the SON
+of Nimshi._" 2 Kings ix. 20. Jehu was the _grandson_ of Nimshi. Shall we
+forbid the inspired writer to use the _same_ word when speaking of
+_Noah's_ grandson? Further; Ham was not the "_younger_" son. The order
+of enumeration makes him the _second_ 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
+_rule_, in any other order the _exception_. 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 _Hakkatan_ rendered "the
+_younger_," means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isa. xl.
+22. "_A LITTLE ONE shall become a thousand_." Isa. xxii. 24. "_All
+vessels of SMALL quantity_." Ps. cxv. 13. "_He will bless them that fear
+the Lord both SMALL and great_." Ex. xviii. 22. "_But every SMALL matter
+they shall judge_." It would be a literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if
+it were translated thus. "When Noah knew what his little son[A], or
+grandson (_Beno Hakkatan_) 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 _fraction_ 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 _at home_, we
+answer: _It is false in point of fact_, though zealously bruited often
+to serve a turn; and _if it were true_, how does it help the argument?
+The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be
+_unto his_ BRETHREN," not unto _himself_!
+
+[Footnote A: The French follows the same analogy; _grandson_ being
+_petit fils_ (little son.)]
+
+
+
+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
+_capital_? 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 _murder_?
+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 _the
+intent_, 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 _motive_ and find out whether the master _designed_ to
+kill. (1.) "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument
+used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num. xxxv. 16, 18. A _rod_, not
+an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other death-weapon--hence,
+from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_ would be inferred;
+for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_ for its weapon. But
+if the servant die _under his hand_, then the unfitness of the
+instrument, is point blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_
+until he _dies_, argues a great many blows and great violence, and this
+kept up to the death-gasp, showed an _intent to kill_. Hence "He shall
+_surely_ be punished." But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length
+of time that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, and
+the master's pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he is his _money_,")
+all made a strong case of circumstantial evidence, showing that the
+master did not design to kill. Further, the word _nakam_, here rendered
+_punished_, is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet it occurs
+thirty-five times in the Old Testament, and in almost every place is
+translated "_avenge_," in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_to
+revenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in our
+translation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the _master_, whereas
+it should refer to the _crime_, and the word rendered _punished_, should
+have been rendered _avenged_. 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, _by avenging it shall be
+avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be _avenged_ by the
+_death_ of the master. So in the next verse, "If he continue a day or
+two," his death is not to be avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as
+in that case the crime was to be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not
+_murder_. In the following verse, another case of personal injury is
+stated, for which the injurer is to pay a _sum of money_; 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 _avenged_," 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 _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury,
+in the following verse, God says, "He shall surely be _fined_,"
+(_Aunash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges determine." The simple meaning
+of the word _anash_, 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 (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of gold."
+That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor
+stripes, nor a fine, but that it was _taking the master's life_ we
+infer, (1.) From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. 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 _uttermost_." 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 _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an _article
+of property_. 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) _is_ my blood;"
+"all they (the Israelites) _are_ brass and tin;" "this (water) _is_ the
+blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord God
+_is_ a sun and a shield;" "God _is_ love;" "the seven good ears _are_
+seven years, and the seven good kine _are_ seven years;" "the tree of
+the field _is_ man's life;" "God _is_ a consuming fire;" "he _is_ his
+money," &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_ of the Bible is so
+amiable, it were hard not to gratify it in this case. The words in the
+original are (_Kaspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ 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 _solid
+silver!_ Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble with
+all--reasoning against "_forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and,
+Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase,
+"_He is his money_," is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since,
+if the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his
+pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the
+fact of his living some time after the injury_, (if the master _meant_
+to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) all together
+make a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master of
+_intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One
+is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_ 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 _equally_ his
+property, and the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is
+to be "surely punished" for destroying _his own property!_ The other
+inference is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the
+master of _intent to kill_, 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 _pecuniary
+loss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ 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 _adequate_ to the desert of the master,
+admits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ 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 _new_
+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 _pecuniary loss_ 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,--_the pecuniary loss of both cases is the same_. If the loss of
+the slave's services is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing
+him, would _God_ command the _same_ punishment for the _accidental_
+knocking out of a _tooth?_ Indeed, unless the injury was done
+_inadvertantly_, the loss of the servant's services was only a _part_ of
+the punishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the
+_main_ punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the
+_community_. To set the servant free, 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. 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
+_his_ tooth--thus redressing the _public_ 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.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+The _points_ 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."
+
+The _buying_ 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."
+
+1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called
+"_bondmen_," while others are called "_servants_," 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 "_ebedh_," the plural of which is here translated "bondmen,"
+is in Isa. xlii. 1, applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_ (bondman,
+slave?) whom I have chosen." So Isa. lii. 13. "Behold my _servant_
+(Christ) shall deal prudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, to _King
+Rehoboam_. "And they spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_
+unto this people, then they will be thy _servants_ forever." In 2 Chron.
+xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation. In fine, the word is
+applied to _all_ 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 _Lord_ and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah,
+and in respectful addresses not less than _fifty_ times in the Old
+Testament.
+
+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 _meant slave_? 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 "_ebedh_," yet he "_owned_" (!) twenty _ebedhs_!
+In our language, we have both _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we
+have both the _things_ and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a
+sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but
+our dictionaries give us none. Why? Because there is no such _thing_.
+But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _ebedh_
+if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. Their _national_
+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
+_heathen laws and usages_ proclaimed their _liabilities_, their
+_locality_ made a _specific_ term unnecessary. But if the Israelites had
+not only _servants_, but a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning
+slave_, 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.
+
+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 _individual_ service, proclaims the permanence of
+the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their
+_permanent domestics_ 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 _always_ get your _permanent_ 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.
+
+That "_forever_" refers to the permanent relations of a _community_,
+rather than to the services of _individuals_, is a fair inference from
+the form of the expression, "Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the
+_heathen_. Of THEM shall ye buy," &c. "THEY shall be your possession."
+To say nothing of the uncertainty of _those individuals_ surviving those
+_after_ whom they are to live, the language used, applies more naturally
+to a _body_ of people, than to _individual_ servants. Besides
+_perpetual_ service cannot be argued from the term _forever_. 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 _Israelitish_ inhabitants alone. The command
+is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL _the inhabitants
+thereof_." 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 _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_. 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 _forever_ did refer to _individual_
+service, we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee.
+The same word defines the length of time which _Jewish_ servants served
+who did not go out in the _seventh_ 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 "_forever_" 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 _forever_, in the 46th verse, respects the
+_general arrangement_, and not _individual service_ the objection does
+not touch the argument. Besides in the 46th verse, the word used, is
+_Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that may be. Whereas
+in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning, a _cutting off_.
+
+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 _nations_, and not to the _individual_ servants, procured
+from these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not be
+held as a _property_-possession, and inheritance; that they became
+servants of their _own accord_, and were paid wages; that they were
+released by law from their regular labor nearly _half the days in each
+year_, and thoroughly _instructed_; that the servants were _protected_
+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 _just such a condition_ 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 _nahal_ and _nahala_,
+inherit and inheritance by no means necessarily signify _articles of
+property_. "The people answered the king and said, we have none
+_inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they moan
+gravely to disclaim the holding of their kin; as an article of
+_property_? "Children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps.
+cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine _inheritance_."
+Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children,
+does he make them _articles of property_? Are forgiveness, and
+chattel-making, synonymes? "Thy testimonies have I taken as a
+_heritage_" (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. "_I_ am their _inheritance_."
+Ezek. xliv. 28. "I will give thee the heathen for thine _inheritance_."
+Ps. ii. 8. "For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he
+forsake his _inheritance_." 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-"_possession_," has been already
+discussed--pp. 37-46--we need add in this place but a word, _ahuzza_
+rendered "_possession_." "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren,
+and gave them a _possession_ in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlii. 11. In
+what sense was Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites? Answer, in the
+sense of _having it to live in_. In what sense were the Israelites to
+_possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an _inheritance for their
+children_? 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 _them_
+shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of
+the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_ shall ye get, and of
+their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and
+_they_ shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a
+_perpetual_ provision for your children after you, to hold as a
+_constant source of supply_. Always _of them_ shall ye serve
+yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest from its structure.
+It was to point out the _class_ of persons from which they were to get
+their supply of servants, and the _way_ in which they were to get them.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+As only _one_ class is called "_hired_," it is inferred that servants of
+the _other_ class were _not paid_ 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 "_hired_" is synonymous with _paid_, and that those
+servants not _called_ "hired" were not _paid_ for their labor, is a mere
+assumption. The meaning of the English verb _to hire_, is to procure for
+a _temporary_ use at a certain price--to engage a person to temporary
+service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew word
+"_saukar_." It is not used when the procurement of _permanent_ service
+is spoken of. Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who
+constituted a stationary part of the family, have been designated by the
+same term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinction on
+this subject, are familiar as table-talk. In many families the domestics
+perform only the _regular_ 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 _paid_ help.) _Both classes are paid_. One is
+permanent, the other occasional and temporary, and therefore in this
+case called "_hired_[A]."
+
+[Footnote A: To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings because he is
+not called a _hired_ servant is profound induction! If I employ a man at
+twelve dollars a month to work my farm, he is my "_hired_" man, but if
+_I give him such a portion of the crop_, or in other words, if he works
+my farm "_on shares_," every farmer knows that he is no longer called my
+"_hired_" 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 "_hired_," and as he still works
+my farm, suppose my neighbours sagely infer, that since he is not my
+"_hired_" laborer, I _rob_ 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.]
+
+A variety of particulars are recorded distinguishing _hired_ from
+_bought_ 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.
+"_Bought_" servants were paid in advance, (a reason for their being
+called _bought_,) and those that went out at the seventh year received a
+_gratuity_. Deut. xv. 12, 13. (2.) The "hired" were paid _in money_, the
+"bought" received their _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and the
+product of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The "hired" _lived_ 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 _besides_ their wages.
+The "bought" servants were, _as a class, superior to the hired_--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 _heir_, come let us
+kill him, _that the inheritance may be ours._" Luke xx. 14. In no
+instance does a _hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. (3.)
+Marriages took place between servants and their master's daughters.
+Sheshan had a _servant_, 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 _hired_ 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]. 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 _hired_ servants and their masters. Their untrustworthiness was
+proverbial. John ix. 12, 13. None but the _lowest class_ 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 _hired_ servant thus distinguished. The
+_bought_ 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, _for all the goods of his master
+were under his hand_." 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
+_disposal of property_. 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 _discretionary_ power, was
+"accused of wasting his master's goods," and manifestly regulated with
+his debtors, the _terms_ of settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8. Such trusts were
+never reposed in _hired_ servants.
+
+[Footnote A: "For the _purchased servant_ 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 _purchased_ 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.]
+
+The inferior condition of _hired_ 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 _hired_ servants." If _hired_ servants were the _superior_ 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 _climbs_; 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, _the lowest place_, 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 _hired_
+servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of
+winning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student of
+the Bible, that _one_ 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 _hired_ 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 _humility_, put it on stilts,
+and set it a strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in
+apeing it.
+
+Israelites and Strangers, belonged indiscriminately to _each_ class of
+the servants, the _bought_ and the _hired_. That those in the former
+class, whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the
+family circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been
+shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,
+merely _political_, the hired servants from the _Israelites_, were more
+favored than even the bought servants from the _Strangers_. 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.
+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.
+To mitigate as much as possible such a calamity, the law released the
+Israelitish servant at the end of six years[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. 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 _Stranger_ to _prolong_ 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
+_permanent employment_, pursued both as a _means_ of bettering their own
+condition, and that of their posterity, and as an _end_ for its own
+sake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not
+otherwise attainable.
+
+[Footnote 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
+_graduated_ 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
+_becoming servants_ proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as
+demanded the labor of a _course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]
+
+We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are
+called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_,) (1.) They
+followed it as a _permanent business_. (2.) Their term of service was
+_much longer_ 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 _tributaries_, required to pay an
+annual tax to the government, either in money, or in public service,
+(called a "_tribute of land-service_;") in other words, all the
+Strangers were _national servants_ to the Israelites, and the same
+Hebrew word used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates
+_national_ 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. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought
+servants, was in their _kinds_ of service. The servants from the
+Strangers were properly the _domestics_, 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
+_agricultural_. 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, "_And
+behold Saul came after the herd out of the field_." 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 _was "threshing wheat_"
+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
+_Jewish_ 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 _unjew_ him, a hardship and rigor
+grievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between
+the descendants of Abraham and the Strangers.--_To guard this and
+another fundamental distinction_, 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 _servitude_." In the Septuagint, "He shall not
+serve thee with the service of a _domestic_." 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] The
+meaning of the passage is, _thou shalt not assign him to the same grade,
+nor put him to the same service, with permanent domestics._ The
+remainder of the regulation is,--"_But as an hired servant and as a
+sojourner shall he be with thee._" 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 _of keeping back their wages_. To
+have taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, would
+have been pre-eminent "_rigor_," 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 _assignment_ of his inheritance,
+but was working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its
+possession and control. But it was that of _the head of a family_, 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 _Israelite--Abraham is his father_, 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, _thou shalt not serve thyself with him,
+with the service of a servant_, guaranties his political privileges, and
+a kind and grade of service, comporting with his character and relations
+as an Israelite. And "as a _hired_ 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 _alleviate_ 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 _irrespective_ 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 _rigorous_ in the extreme[B]. 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 _serve_ with rigor." This
+rigor is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted and the _mode_ 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.
+
+[Footnote 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."]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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 _social_ estimation. They were regarded according to their
+character, and worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin,
+employments, and political condition.]
+
+
+
+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 _men_, with the rights, interests, hopes
+and destinies of _men_. In all these respects, _all_ classes of servants
+among the Israelites, formed but ONE CLASS. The _different_ classes and
+the differences in _each_ class, were, (1.) _Hired Servants._ This class
+consisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were
+different. The _Israelite_ was an agricultural servant. The Stranger was
+a _domestic_ and _personal_ servant, and in some instances _mechanical_;
+both were occasional and temporary. Both lived in their own families,
+their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work was done.
+(2.) _Bought Servants_, (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], and neither was temporary. The Israelitish servant, with the
+exception of the _freeholders_ was released after six years. The
+stranger was a permanent servant, continuing until the jubilee. A marked
+distinction obtained also between different classes of _Jewish_ 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 _freeholder_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, 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.]
+
+It should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the
+Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal natural and
+religious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed
+by those of their own people who were _not_ 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 _political_ and _national._ (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 _unjewish._
+
+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 _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_. 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.
+
+
+
+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 _descendant of Abraham_ and a
+_Stranger_, 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 _permanent
+female domestics_; but her marriage, did not release her master from
+_his_ 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
+_grade_ and _term_ of service, nor impair her obligation to fulfill
+_her_ 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 _their_ 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.
+
+
+
+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 _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. For, _be it remembered_, only
+_one_ 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 _commuted_, 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 _enslave_ 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 _man_--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 _slave_,
+cheapens to nothing _universal human nature_, 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, by robbing it of _all_, and
+annihilating their _foundation_--the everlasting distinction between
+persons and things? To make a man a chattel, is not the _punishment_,
+but the _annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and, so far as it goes, of
+_all_ 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 _doctrines_. 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
+_inhabitants_ or merely of the _body politic?_ The word _haram_, to
+destroy, signifies _national_, as well as individual destruction, the
+destruction of _political_ existence, equally with _personal_; of
+governmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects.
+Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to
+mean _personal_ 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 _turn their backs unto thee_" Ex. xxiii. 27. Here "_all
+thine enemies_" were to _turn their backs_ and "_all the people_" to be
+"_destroyed_." Does this mean that God would let all their _enemies_
+escape, but kill all their _friends_, or that he would _first_ 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 _individual
+extermination_ of those whose lives and interests it thus protects?
+These laws were given to the Israelites, long _before_ they entered
+Canaan; and they must have inferred from them that a multitude of the
+inhabitants of the land were to _continue_ in it, 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 "_dwelt among them_," 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 _stood not a man_ of _all_
+their enemies before them." How can this be, if the command to _destroy_
+enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the command to _drive out_,
+unconditional expulsion from the country, rather than their expulsion
+from the _possession_ or _ownership_ 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 _acquiesced_ 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]. 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 _tributaries_ 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[B]. 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 _utterly destroy_ 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
+_utterly destroyed_ 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 _all been_
+"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 _cities_, (and even those conditionally,) because,
+only the inhabitants of the _cities_ are specified,--"of the _cities_ 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 _all_ the
+nations and individuals _around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God
+commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with
+_any_ of them would be perilous--with the inhabitants of the _cities_
+peculiarly, and of the _Canaanitish_ 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
+_tributaries_--but if they came out against Israel in battle, the _men_
+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
+_afar off_. 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 _whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with
+the 10th, whereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_
+specified in the 12th, 13th, and 14th, making a distinction between
+those _Canaanitish_ cities that _fought_, and the cities _afar off_ that
+fought--in one case destroying the males and females, and in the other,
+the _males_ only. The offer of peace, and the _conditional
+preservation_, were as really guarantied to _Canaanitish_ 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 _not_ come out against Israel in battle, they would
+have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been "_destroyed
+utterly._" The great design was to _transfer the territory_ of the
+Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute sovereignty
+in every respect_; 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 _denationalized_, 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[C]; 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. "_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_; THEN SHALL THEY BE
+BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE."
+
+[Footnote 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 _exterminate all the Canaanites_,
+their pledge to save themselves was neither a repeal of the statute, nor
+absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ 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 _had_ passed their word
+to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than God's command?
+So Saul seems to have passed _his_ 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 _remaining in
+any of the coasts of Israel_, let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. 2
+Sam. xxii. 1-6.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote C: 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.]
+
+[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 _indices_, 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.]
+
+
+
+
+
+THE
+
+
+ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER  NO 4.
+
+
+THE
+
+
+BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+
+AN INQUIRY INTO THE
+
+
+PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS
+
+
+ON THE SUBJECT OF
+
+
+HUMAN RIGHTS.
+
+
+Fourth Edition--Enlarged.
+
+
+
+NEW YORK:
+
+PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
+
+NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.
+
+1838.
+
+This No. contains 7 sheets:--Postage, under 100 miles, 10 1/2 cents;
+over 100 miles, 14 cents.
+
+Please read and Circulate.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+    DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,
+
+
+        NEGATIVE,
+
+        AFFIRMATIVE,
+
+        LEGAL,
+
+
+    THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY
+
+
+        "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL,"
+
+        "THOU SHALT NOT COVET,"
+
+
+    MAN-STEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,
+
+
+        SEPARATION OF MAN FROM BRUTES AND THINGS,
+
+
+    IMPORT OF "BUY" AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY,"
+
+
+        SERVANTS SOLD THEMSELVES,
+
+
+    RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SERVANTS,
+
+    SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY,
+
+
+        RUNAWAY SERVANTS NOT TO BE DELIVERED TO THEIR MASTERS,
+
+
+    SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES,
+
+    MASTERS NOT "OWNERS,"
+
+
+        SERVANTS NOT SUBJECTED TO THE USES OF PROPERTY,
+
+        SERVANTS EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED FROM PROPERTY,
+
+        EXAMINATION OF GEN. xii. 5.--"THE SOULS THAT THEY HAD
+        GOTTEN," &c.
+
+        SOCIAL EQUALITY OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS,
+
+        CONDITION OF THE GIBEONITES AS SUBJECTS OF THE HEBREW
+        COMMONWEALTH,
+
+        EGYPTIAN BONDAGE CONTRASTED WITH AMERICAN SLAVERY,
+
+        CONDITION OF AMERICAN SLAVES,
+
+        ILL FED,
+
+        ILL CLOTHED,
+
+        OVER-WORKED,
+
+        THEIR DWELLING UNFIT FOR HUMAN BEINGS,
+
+        MORAL CONDITION--"HEATHENS,"
+
+
+    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+    "CURSED BE CANAAN," &c.--EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,
+
+    "FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &c.--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 20, 21,
+
+    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44-46,
+
+
+        "BOTH THY BONDMEN, &c., SHALL BE OF THE HEATHEN,"
+
+        "OF THEM SHALL YE BUY,"
+
+        "THEY SHALL BE YOUR BONDMEN FOREVER,"
+
+        "YE SHALL TAKE THEM AS AN INHERITANCE," &c.
+
+
+    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 39, 40.--THE FREEHOLDER NOT TO "SERVE
+    AS A BOND SERVANT,"
+
+
+        DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIRED AND BOUGHT SERVANTS,
+
+        BOUGHT SERVANTS THE MOST FAVORED AND HONORED CLASS,
+
+        ISRAELITES AND STRANGERS BELONGED TO BOTH CLASSES,
+
+        ISRAELITES SERVANTS TO THE STRANGERS,
+
+        REASONS FOR THE RELEASE OF THE ISRAELITISH SERVANTS IN
+        THE SEVENTH YEAR,
+
+        REASONS FOR ASSIGNING THE STRANGERS TO A LONGER SERVICE,
+
+        REASONS FOR CALLING THEM THE SERVANTS,
+
+        DIFFERENT KINDS OF SERVICE ASSIGNED TO THE ISRAELITES
+        AND STRANGERS,
+
+
+    REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF
+    EACH,
+
+
+        POLITICAL DISABILITIES OF THE STRANGERS,
+
+
+    EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2-6.--"IF THOU BUY AN HEBREW SERVANT,"
+
+    THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION,
+
+
+
+
+
+THE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+
+
+DEFINITION OF SLAVERY.
+
+If we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must determine
+_what slavery is_. 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.
+
+1. PRIVATION OF SUFFRAGE. Then minors are slaves.
+
+2. INELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE. Then females are slaves.
+
+3. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Then slaveholders in the District of
+Columbia are slaves.
+
+4. PRIVATION OF ONE'S OATH IN LAW. Then atheists are slaves.
+
+5. PRIVATION OF TRIAL BY JURY. Then all in France are slaves.
+
+6. BEING REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A PARTICULAR RELIGION. Then the people of
+England are slaves.
+
+7. APPRENTICESHIP. The rights and duties of master and apprentice are
+correlative. The _claim_ of each upon the other results from his
+_obligation_ 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 _just_ to the
+former it is _benevolent_ 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 _right_ 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 _equally_ 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?
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _property_ be guilty? Can _chattels_ deserve punishment?
+
+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!
+
+12. INVOLUNTARY OR COMPULSORY SERVICE. A juryman is empannelled against
+his will, and sit he _must_. A sheriff orders his posse; bystanders
+_must_ turn in. Men are _compelled_ 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
+_condition_. The slave's _feelings_ 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 _make_ him a chattel, or make
+those guiltless who _hold_ 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 _consent_ 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.
+
+Many of the foregoing conditions are _appendages_ of slavery, but no
+one, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging
+element.
+
+ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY--making free
+agents, chattels--converting _persons_ into _things_--sinking
+immortality into _merchandize_. A _slave_ is one held in this condition.
+In law, "he owns nothing, and can acquire nothing." His right to himself
+is abrogated. If he say _my_ hands, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY_self_, they
+are figures of speech. To _use himself_ for his own good, is a _crime_.
+To keep what he earns, is _stealing_. To take his body into his own
+keeping, is _insurrection_. In a word, the profit of his master is made
+the END of his being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end--a mere means
+to an end into which his interests do not enter, of which they
+constitute no portion[A]. MAN, sunk to a _thing!_ the intrinsic element,
+the _principle_ 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 _rights_,
+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 _himself_; not loading
+him with burdens, but making him a _beast of burden_; not restraining
+liberty, but subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them;
+not inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not
+exacting involuntary labor, but sinking man into an _implement_ 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 _thing_!
+
+[Footnote A: To deprive human nature of _any_ of its rights is
+_oppression_; to take away the _foundation_ of its rights is slavery. In
+other words, whatever sinks man from an END to a mere _means_, 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 _mere means_, a slave. True in other respects slavery was
+abolished in the British West Indies August, 1834. Its bloodiest
+features were 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 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. [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.] ]
+
+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 _things_--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." _Brev. Dig._, 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_, Art. 35.
+
+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.
+
+Having stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE
+BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A] "To the _law_ and the testimony?"
+
+[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral
+character. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records
+without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob
+and his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and
+concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent
+entry_ God's _endorsement?_ Because the Bible in its catalogue of human
+actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write
+against it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach
+it into a virtue?]
+
+
+
+THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY.
+
+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 _belongs_ 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 _use_ 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 _use_. The right to use according to will, is _itself_
+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 _relative_ to this, is
+derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the
+_foundation right_--the _post in the middle_, 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 _a man belongs to himself_--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 man_ 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 _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of
+_his own_; and yet in the act of making a man a slave, the slaveholder
+_asserts_ the validity of his own title, while he seizes him as his
+property who has the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he
+does not merely disfranchise of humanity _one_ individual, but UNIVERSAL
+MAN. He destroys the foundations. He annihilates _all rights_. He
+attacks not only the human race, but _universal being_, and rushes upon
+JEHOVAH. For rights are _rights_; God's are no more--man's are no less.
+
+The eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any part_ of that which
+belongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which
+prohibits the taking of _any_ thing from him, sanction the taking of
+_every_ thing! Does it thunder wrath against the man who robs his
+neighbor of a _cent_, yet commission him to rob his neighbour of
+_himself?_ Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the eight
+commandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to take the
+_earner_, 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  tenth adds, "Thou shalt not _covet_ 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 _tempt_ to it. Who ever made human beings
+slaves, without _coveting_ 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 _desire_ 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. _Ten_ commandments
+constitute the brief compend of human duty. _Two_ of these brand slavery
+as sin.
+
+
+
+MANSTEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. XXI. 16.
+
+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]." Ex. xxi. 16.
+
+[Footnote 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 _its full protection from the
+danger of being enticed away from its rightful owner."_--Am. Quart.
+Review for June, 1833. Article "Negro slavery."]
+
+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. "_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. Deut.
+xxiv, 7[A]. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance to
+the Mosaic system!
+
+[Footnote 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, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_,
+the person compelling him but once to do so, shall die as a thief,
+whether he has sold him or not."]
+
+The word _Ganabh_ here rendered _stealeth,_ 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.
+
+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
+_servant_, not "he that stealeth a _man_." If the crime had been the
+taking of an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have
+been expressive of that relation, and most especially if it was the
+relation of property and _proprietor!_
+
+The crime is stated in a three-fold form--man _stealing_, _selling_, and
+_holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one
+penalty--DEATH[A]. This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of a man,
+is the _man himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said, "Indeed
+I was _stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. How
+_stolen?_ His brethren sold him as an article of merchandize. Contrast
+this penalty for _man_-stealing with that for _property_-stealing, Ex.
+xxii. 14. If a man had stolen an _ox_ 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 _man_, the _first_ 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
+_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-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 _property-value_ 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 _of the same kind_. Why was
+not the rule uniform? When a _man_ 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 _have_ them? So
+the ox-thief might not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, five. But
+if God permitted men to hold _men_ 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 _man_ 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 _money!_ 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."
+
+[Footnote A: "Those are _men-stealers_ who abduct, _keep_, sell, or buy
+slaves or freemen." GROTIUS.]
+
+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 _that_ 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 _property_, by putting him on a level with
+it?
+
+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 _nature_ of
+the article, but in taking as _mine_ what is _his_. But when I take my
+neighbor himself, and first make him _property_, and then _my_ 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
+_personality_ into _property_. 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 _nature_ of a _man_--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 _parent_, it struck the smiter
+dead. The parental relation is the _centre_ of human society. God guards
+it with peculiar care. To violate that, is to violate all. Whoever
+tramples on that, shows that _no_ 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.
+
+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. "_Honor thy father and thy
+mother_," 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 _man,_ but a
+_parent_--_a distinction_ 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 _immortal nature_, the blotting out of a sacred
+_distinction_--making MEN "chattels."
+
+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, "_Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man
+shall his blood be shed, for_ 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. "_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels."_
+Slavery drags him down among _brutes._ 2. _"And hast crowned him with
+glory and honor."_ Slavery tears off his crown, and puts on a _yoke_. 3.
+_"Thou madest him to have dominion_[A] OVER _the works of thy hands."_
+Slavery breaks his sceptre, and cast him down _among_ those works--yea,
+_beneath them_. 4. _"Thou hast put all things under his feet_." 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, _"Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of
+these, ye did it unto ME._"
+
+[Footnote A: "Thou madest him to have dominion." In Gen. i. 28, God says
+to man, _"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," thus
+vesting in _every_ human being the right of ownership over the earth,
+its products and animal life, and in _each_ human being the _same_
+right. By so doing God prohibited the exercise of ownership by man over
+_man_; for the grant to _all_ men of _equal_ ownership, for ever _shut_
+out the possibility of their exercising ownership over _each other_, as
+whoever is the owner of a _man_, is the owner of his _right of
+property_--in other words, when one man becomes the property of another
+his rights become such too, his _right of property_ is transferred to
+his "owner," and thus as far as _himself_ is concerned, is annihilated.
+Finally, by originally vesting _all_ men with dominion or ownership over
+property, God proclaimed the _right of all_ to exercise it, and
+pronounced every man who takes it away a robber of the highest grade.
+Such is every slaveholder.]
+
+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 _legal_ forms of Divine
+institutions previously existing. As a _system_, the latter alone is of
+Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs God has not
+made them our exemplars.[B] The question to be settled by us, is not
+what were Jewish _customs_, but what were the rules that God gave for
+the regulation of those customs.
+
+[Footnote B: 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 _concubinage_,
+winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, 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!]
+
+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.
+
+
+
+IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY."
+
+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 _the terms
+themselves!_ How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be
+proved were always _assumed_! 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 _now_ used, is the _inspired_ sense. David says, "I
+prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried." What, stop the earth
+in its revolution! Two hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in its
+strict Latin sense, to _come before_, or _anticipate_. 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 _opposite_ to their present meaning. A few examples follow: "I
+purposed to come to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the
+four _beasts_ (living ones) fell down and worshiped God,"--"Whosoever
+shall _offend_ (cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--Go out into
+the highways and _compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--Only let your
+_conversation_ (habitual conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,"--"The Lord
+Jesus Christ who shall judge the _quick_ (living) and the dead,"--They
+that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me," So when tribulation or
+persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (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 _now_. 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 _now_,
+it _must_ have trailed over Canaan four thousand years ago!
+
+The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of
+servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the
+fallacy, that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or
+whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of
+your paying for it, _proves_ 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 _buy_ is still
+used to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their firstborn
+were or are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really as were
+_servants_. 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 _price_
+should be set upon the "_persons_," and it prescribed the manner and
+_terms_ of the "estimation" or valuation, by the payment of which, the
+persons might be _bought off_ from the service vowed. The _price_ 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 _bought_ and their _prices_ regulated by law! 4. Bible saints
+_bought_ their wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "Moreover Ruth the Moabitess,
+the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ (bought) to be my wife." Ruth iv.
+10.[A] Hosea bought his wife. "So I _bought_ 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.[B] 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 _real_
+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 _medium_ 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 _wives_, their husbands and
+masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3, 27. If
+_buying_ servants proves them property, buying wives proves _them_
+property. 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? 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."
+
+[Footnote A: In the verse preceding, Boaz says, "I have _bought_ all
+that was Elimelech's * * * of the hand of Naomi." In the original, the
+same word (_kana_) 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+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 _marriages_ in the old German
+Chronicles was, "A BOUGHT B."
+
+The word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the nature
+of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, "I have _gotten_
+(bought) a man from the Lord." She named him Cain, that is _bought_. "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 _buy_)
+the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. "He brought them to his
+mountain which his right hand had _purchased_," (gotten.) Neh. v. 8. "We
+of our ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren the Jews, that were
+sold unto the heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons
+reduced to servitude, but to those taken _out_ of it. Prov. viii. 22.
+"The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way." Prov. xix.
+8. "He that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Finally, to
+_buy_ is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word _kana_.
+
+Even at this day the word _buy_ 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 "_bought_" 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 _indenture_ in Illinois, servants now are "_bought_."[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" _out_ 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 _bought_ him." Sir Robert
+Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it, can
+_buy_ him," and John Randolph said, "The northern delegation is in the
+market; give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them." The temperance
+publications tell us that candidates for office _buy_ men with whiskey;
+and the oracles of street tattle, that the court, district attorney, and
+jury, in the late trial of Robinson were _bought_, yet we have no
+floating visions of "chattels personal," man-auctions, or coffles.
+
+[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the free state of
+Illinois--"No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time _purchase_
+any servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the
+persons aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such
+servant shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and
+taken."]
+
+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 _voluntary_. It is hardly necessary
+to add that they are in no sense the "property" of their purchasers.[A]
+
+[Footnote A: "The select-men" of each town annually give notice, that at
+such a time and place, they will proceed to _sell_ 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: "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.] ]
+
+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 _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain
+that neither party regarded the persons _bought_ 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 _value
+received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft of their
+personal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of
+_services_ (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in
+Scripture usage, _buying the persons_. 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," _sold themselves_, and of their
+own accord. 2. Paying for the permanent _service_ of persons, or even a
+portion of it, is called "buying" those persons; just as paying for the
+_use_ of land or houses for a number of years in succession is called in
+Scripture usage _buying_ them. See Lev. xxv. 28, 33, and xxvii. 24. The
+objector, at the outset, takes it for granted, that servants were bought
+of _third_ persons; and thence infers that they were articles of
+property. Both the alleged fact and the inference are _sheer
+assumptions_. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in which
+a _master sold his servant_.
+
+That servants who were "bought," _sold themselves_, is a fair inference
+from various passages of Scripture.[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." Yet the 51st verse informs us
+that this servant was "BOUGHT" and that the price of his purchase was
+paid to _himself_. The _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word,
+which, in verse 47, is rendered _sell himself_, is in verse 39 of the
+same chapter, rendered _be sold_; 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 "_be
+sold_" without _being bought_? Our translation makes it nonsense. The
+word _Makar_ rendered "_be sold_" 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 _offer yourselves_ 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 _sold thyself_ to work
+evil." "There was none like unto Ahab which did sell _himself_ to work
+wickedness."--2 Kings xvii. 17. "They used divination and enchantments,
+and _sold themselves_ to do evil."--Isa. l. 1. "For your iniquities have
+ye _sold yourselves."_ Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have _sold yourselves_ 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 _third_ persons.
+If _servants_ were bought of third persons, it is strange that no
+_instance_ of it is on record.
+
+[Footnote 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 _third persons_, 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 _sellers_ were doomed as well as the _sold_. Where, we ask, did the
+sellers get their right to sell? God by commanding the Israelites to
+BUY, affirmed the right of _somebody_ to _sell_, and that the
+_ownership_ of what was sold existed _somewhere_; which _right_ and
+ownership he commanded them to _recognize_ and _respect_. We repeat the
+question, where did the heathen _sellers_ get their right to sell, since
+_they_ were dispossessed of their right to _themselves_ and doomed to
+slavery equally with those whom they sold. Did God's decree vest in them
+a right to _others_ while it annulled their right to _themselves_? If,
+as the objector's argument assumes, one part of "the heathen round
+about" were _already_ held as slaves by the other part, _such_ of course
+were not _doomed_ to slavery, for they were already slaves. So also, if
+those heathen who held them as slaves had a _right_ to hold them, which
+right God commanded the Israelites to _buy out_, thus requiring them to
+recognize _it_ as a _right_, and on no account to procure its transfer
+to themselves without paying to the holders an equivalent, surely, these
+_slaveholders_ were not doomed by God to be slaves, for according to the
+objector, God had himself affirmed their right _to hold others as
+slaves_, and commanded his people to respect it.]
+
+We now proceed to inquire into the _condition_ of servants under the
+patriarchal and Mosaic systems.
+
+
+
+I. THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF SERVANTS.
+
+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
+_servants_. While the master's interests were guarded from injury, those
+of the servants were _promoted_. 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 _privileges_ and
+_favors_.
+
+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.
+
+II. NO STRANGER COULD JOIN THE FAMILY OF AN ISRAELITE WITHOUT BECOMING A
+PROSELYTE. Compliance with this condition was the _price of the
+privilege_. Gen. xvii. 9-14, 23, 27. In other words, to become a servant
+was virtually to become an Israelite.[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 _punishment_, or a ticket of admission to
+_privileges_?
+
+[Footnote 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
+_became Jews_." 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.]
+
+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 _cast out_ 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
+_sent her away_. 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 _put out_ 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 _family_ of an
+Israelite. In other words he could be a _servant_ no longer than he was
+an _Israelite_. To forfeit the latter _distinction_ involved the
+forfeiture of the former _privilege_--which proves that it _was_ a
+privilege.
+
+IV. THE HEBREW SERVANT COULD COMPEL HIS MASTER TO KEEP HIM.
+
+When the six years' contract had expired, if the servant _demanded_ it,
+the law _obliged_ 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.
+
+V. SERVANTS WERE ADMITTED INTO COVENANT WITH GOD. Deut. xxix. 10-13.
+
+VI. THEY WERE GUESTS AT ALL NATIONAL AND FAMILY FESTIVALS Ex. xii.
+43-44; Deut xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16.
+
+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.
+
+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,
+
+1. _Every seventh year;_ Lev. xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who were
+servants during the entire period between the jubilees, _eight whole
+years_, (including the jubilee year,) of unbroken rest.
+
+2. _Every seventh day._ This in forty-two years, the eight being
+subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just _six years_.
+
+3. _The three annual festivals._ Ex. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23. The
+_Passover_, 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 _festival
+week_, 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 _nine
+weeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the
+sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.
+
+4. _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says that the
+Jews always kept _two_ 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.
+
+5. _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and
+of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.
+
+6. _The atonement day_. On the tenth of the seventh month Lev. xxiii.
+27.
+
+These two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not
+reckoned above.
+
+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 _fractions_ to the
+objector, we have left out those numerous _local_ festivals to which
+frequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; 1 Sam. ix. 12. 22. etc., and
+the various _family_ 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.
+
+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 _every day_, the
+servants would have to themselves nearly _one half of each day_.
+
+The service of those Strangers who were _national_ 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 _Nethinims_) 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.
+
+IX. THE SERVANT WAS PROTECTED BY LAW EQUALLY WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF
+THE COMMUNITY
+
+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] Deut. xxvii. 19.
+
+[Footnote 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. "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 _committal of any thing against our
+fellow men?_"
+
+"Answer. No where we do find a trace of such a difference. See Lev. xix.
+33-36."
+
+"God says thou shalt not murder, _steal_, cheat, &c. In every place the
+action _itself_ is prohibited as being an abomination to God _without
+respect to the PERSONS against whom it is committed_." ]
+
+X. THE MOSAIC SYSTEM ENJOINED THE GREATEST AFFECTION AND KINDNESS
+TOWARDS SERVANTS, FOREIGN AS WELL AS JEWISH.
+
+"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?
+
+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 _alike_ the natural rights of _all_ men, and
+making for all an _equal_ 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.
+
+Finally--With such watchful jealousy did the Mosaic Institutes guard the
+_rights_ of servants, as to make the mere fact of a servant's escape
+from his master presumptive evidence that his master had _oppressed_
+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.
+
+THESE ARE REGULATIONS OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY
+SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.
+
+
+
+II. WERE PERSONS MADE SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?
+
+We argue that they became servants of _their own accord,_ because,
+
+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], 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 _forced_ through all these processes? Was the
+renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant
+with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they
+_compelled_ 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 _driven_
+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 _servant_, was to become
+a _proselyte_. 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 _merchandise?_ Were _proselyte and chattel_
+synonymes in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_
+before taken into covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition
+of adoption? the sure and sacred passport to the communion of the
+saints?
+
+[Footnote A: Maimonides, 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.
+
+"But he that is in the _house_ 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 _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown
+slave, and he be _unwilling_, 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 _refuse_ 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."--Maimon, Hilcoth Miloth, Chap. 1,
+Sec. 8.
+
+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
+_full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his
+expenses. But that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign
+servant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of
+an Israelite) of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a
+mere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic
+system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_.
+Whether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes
+not within the scope of this inquiry. ]
+
+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.
+
+As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the
+_right_ of the master to hold him; his _fleeing_ shows his _choice_,
+proclaims his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall not force
+him back and thus recognize the _right_ 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 _heathen_
+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 _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and
+yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of
+_thousands_ of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A _foreign_
+servant escapes to the Israelites; God says, "He shall dwell with thee,
+in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it
+_liketh him_ best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming
+into Israel of his own accord, had been _dragged_ 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
+_voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the same treatment of the
+_same person_, 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 _begin_ the violence _after_ he has come
+among you. But if you commit the first act on the _other side of the
+line_; 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
+_greater_ 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 _him_,
+uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and kindness denied to
+the multitudes who _were_ circumcised, and _within_ 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
+_master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was
+not, merely "Thou shalt not deliver him unto his _master_," but "he
+shall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_ in one of
+thy gates where it liketh _him_ best." Every Israelite was forbidden to
+put him in any condition _against his will_. What was this but a
+proclamation, that all who _chose_ 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
+_foreign_ servants only, there was no law requiring the return of
+servants who had escaped from the _Israelites_. _Property_ lost, and
+_cattle_ escaped, they were required to return, but not escaped
+_servants_. These verses contain, 1st, a command, "Thou shalt not
+deliver," &c., 2d. a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free
+choice_, 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 _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his
+residence, it is _oppression_, and shall not be tolerated."[A]
+
+[Footnote 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
+_authority_, 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 _for his tooth's
+sake,"_ 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 _as a compensation_, for the
+loss of a tooth.]
+
+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 "_slaves_" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a
+body of slaves is moved any distance in our _republic_, they are
+handcuffed and chained together, to keep them from running away, or
+beating their drivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ 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
+_handmaids_ 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!
+
+IV. WILFUL NEGLECT OF CEREMONIAL RITES DISSOLVED THE RELATION.
+
+Suppose the servants from the heathen had, upon entering Jewish
+families, refused circumcision; if _slaves_, how simple the process of
+emancipation! Their _refusal_ 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;"
+_excommunicated_. Ex. xii. 19; xxx. 33; Num. xix. 16.
+
+V. SERVANTS OF THE PATRIARCHS NECESSARILY VOLUNTARY.
+
+Abraham's servants are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred
+and eighteen _young men_ "born in his house," and many more _not_ 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] 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.
+
+[Footnote 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!" "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.
+
+"Mr. Pettis will attend promptly to all law business confided to him.
+
+"N.B. New York City is estimated to contain 5,000 Runaway Slaves.
+
+"PETTIS." ]
+
+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 _fact_ 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.
+
+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
+_desire_." Job. xxxi. 16. Of course he could hardly have made them live
+with him, and forced them to work for him against _their desire_.
+
+When Isaac sojourned in the country of the Philistines he "had _great
+store_ 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?
+
+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 _compel_ 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 _their own choice_,
+and that they regarded their own interests as inseparably identified
+with those of their masters. Neh. iv. 23.
+
+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 _no servants_. Yet we are told that Jacob "took his
+journey with _all that he had_." 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 _all that they have_, are come." Gen. xlvii.
+1. The servants doubtless, served under their _own contracts_, and when
+Jacob went into Egypt, they _chose_ to stay in their own country.
+
+The government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until
+their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex.
+xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their
+_servants_. To give the master a _right_ 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 _buy_ a servant, equally
+annihilates the servant's _right of choice_." 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 _another_ man.[A]
+
+[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose
+of even the _services_ 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.]
+
+Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were
+bought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ 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."[B]
+
+[Footnote B: 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."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV.
+Sec. XI. Jarchi, on the same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse her
+to be his wife, for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her
+_espousal_."]
+
+VII. VOLUNTARY SERVANTS FROM THE STRANGERS.
+
+We infer that _all_ 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 _wages_ to their _free choice_, 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 _ask_ one man to engage in their service, and _drag_ 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?
+
+VIII. HEBREW SERVANTS VOLUNTARY.
+
+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 _choice_ 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 _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to
+get rid of him.
+
+IX. THE MANNER OF PROCURING SERVANTS, AN APPEAL TO CHOICE.
+
+The Israelites were commanded to offer them a suitable inducement, and
+then leave them to decide. They might neither seize them by _force_, nor
+frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false pretences, nor
+_borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to BUY
+them[A]--that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the individuals
+to _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to _refuse all
+offers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their own work_.
+Suppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become servants, what
+provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency? NONE.
+
+[Footnote 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, _stands by itself_, and has nothing to do with the
+condition of servants.]
+
+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 _they shall_ CLEAVE to the house of Jacob, and the house of Israel
+shall possess them in the land of the Lord, for servants and handmaids."
+
+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 _bodies_ and
+our lands; _buy_ 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.
+
+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 _their
+own choice_. "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 _Jew_. 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 _its_
+servants. To make this clear, he refers to one of their own
+institutions, that of _domestic service_, 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 _chooses_ the service of
+the one, and _spurns_ that of the other. "He shall _hold to_ the one and
+_despise_ (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 _spurns_ one of two masters, makes it impossible
+for him to serve _that one_, if he spurned _both_ it would make it
+impossible for him to serve _either_. 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 _his own will_.
+Further, the phraseology of the passage shows that the _choice_ of the
+servant decided the question. "He will HOLD TO the one,"--hence there is
+no difficulty in the way of his serving _him_; but "no servant can
+serve" a master whom he does not "_hold to_," or _cleave_ to, whose
+service he does not _choose_. This is the sole ground of the
+impossibility asserted by our Lord.
+
+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 _choice_ of the individual.
+
+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 _rich_ strangers did not become servants
+to the Israelites, we infer that those who _did_, became such not
+because they were _strangers_, but because they were _poor_,--not
+because, on account of their being heathen, they were _compelled by
+force_ to become servants, but because, on account of their _poverty_,
+they _chose_ to become servants to better their condition.
+
+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 _master_. 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 _voluntarily_ 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 "_clave_" to them. Neh. x. 28, 29; xi. 3; Ez.
+vii. 7.
+
+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 _compulsion_.
+
+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 _public_, lay great stress on the
+_willingness_ 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]
+
+[Footnote 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 _public_. Otherwise the Mosaic system,
+instead of constituting in its different parts a harmonious _whole_,
+would be divided against itself; its principles counteracting and
+nullifying each other.]
+
+Again, the voluntariness of servants is a natural inference from the
+fact that the Hebrew word _ebedh,_ uniformly rendered _servant_, is
+applied to a great variety of classes and descriptions of persons under
+the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, _all of whom_ were voluntary
+and most of them eminently so. For instance, it is applied to persons
+rendering acts of _worship_ about seventy times, whereas it is applied
+to _servants_ not more than half that number of times.
+
+To this we may add, that the illustrations drawn from the condition and
+service of _servants_ 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 _resisted_ his service, and he performed it only by
+_compulsion_. Many passages will at once occur to those who are familiar
+with the Bible. We give a single example. "_To whom YE YIELD YOURSELVES
+servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey._" 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.
+
+
+
+III. WERE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY
+
+As the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it
+would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their
+becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they
+_were paid_ for their labor, we argue.
+
+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 _rea_, translated _neighbor_,
+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 _paid_
+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 _do judgment and
+justice_, and then it was well with him. He _judged the cause of the
+poor and needy_; then it was well with him. But thine eyes and thine
+heart are not but for thy _covetousness_, and for to shed innocent
+blood, and for _oppression_, and for violence to do it." Jer. xxii. 15,
+16. 17.[A]
+
+[Footnote 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 _right_ 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 _by fraud_, crieth." James v. 4. As
+though he had said, "wages are the _right_ of laborers; those who work
+for you have a just claim on you for _pay_; this you refuse to render,
+and thus _defraud_ them by keeping from them what _belongs_ to them."
+See also Mal. iii 5.]
+
+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 _verbatim_ 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! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others
+as we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ 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."
+
+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 _redeemed,_ either by his
+kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been forced to sell himself from poverty,
+he must have acquired considerable property _after_ 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]) 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.[B] 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 _owner of a house_.
+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 _wages_ 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;[C] and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the
+_relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and now, yet we have enough to
+warrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value
+_then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing
+a large amount of money? They _"know how to take care of themselves"_
+quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on
+such a small scale, or in the taking of _such things_ 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 _proficients_ in the art, who drive the
+business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their
+betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at
+a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ 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 _Right_ and _Very
+Reverends!_ 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
+_situation_, 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 _slay_ one who
+would slay him?"]
+
+
+[Footnote C: The Nethinims, which name was afterwards given to the
+Gibeonites on account of their being _set apart_ 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.]
+
+Again. The Israelites often _hired_ servants from the strangers. Deut.
+xxiv. 17.
+
+Since then it is certain that they gave wages to a part of their
+Canaanitish servants, thus recognizing their _right_ to a reward for
+their labor, we infer that they did not rob the rest of their earnings.
+
+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 _right and just
+in itself_, 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!
+
+The parable of our Lord, contained in Mat. xviii. 23-34, not only
+derives its significance from the fact, that servants can both _own_ and
+_owe_ and _earn_ 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 _owe_ him ten thousand talents. From the
+fact that the servant _owed_ this to his master, we naturally infer,
+that he must have been at some time, and in some way, the responsible
+_owner_ 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 _agent_, for in that case no claim of
+_debt_ for value received would lie, but, that having sustained the
+responsibilities of legal _proprietorship_, he was under the liabilities
+resulting therefrom. 3. Not having on hand wherewith to pay, he says to
+his master "have patience with me _and I will pay thee all_." If the
+servant had been his master's _property_, 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
+_proprietor_ of his earnings, but that his master had _full knowledge_
+of that fact.--In a word, the supposition that the master was the
+_owner_ of the servant, would annihilate all legal claim upon him for
+value received, and that the servant was the _property_ of the master,
+would absolve him from all obligations of debt, or rather would always
+_forestall_ such obligations--for the relations of owner and creditor in
+such case, would annihilate each other, as would those of _property_ and
+_debtor_. 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.
+
+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 _husbandmen_ 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
+_handmaid_ (or _maid-servant_,) that is _heir_ 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?
+
+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 _acquiring_
+property to meet these expenditures.
+
+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]
+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 _Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason,
+_they did not go out in the seventh year,_ but continued until the
+jubilee. If the fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such a
+_gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_, it proves
+that the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs
+also; a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators,
+however unscrupulous.
+
+[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as
+follows--"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say,
+_'Loading, ye shall load him,'_ 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 _you, not
+less than thirty shekels,_ which is the valuation of a servant, as
+declared in Ex. xxi. 32."--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec.
+3.]
+
+VII. SERVANTS WERE BOUGHT. In other words, they received compensation in
+advance.[A] Having shown, under a previous head, that servants _sold
+themselves_, 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,[B] 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.
+
+[Footnote 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 _authority_ and of
+course, from all those liabilities of injury, to which _as his servant_,
+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 _that
+particular way_, that is, _by working for him as his servant_.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and
+boys at thirteen years.]
+
+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 _right_ of the servant to the _use_ of himself
+and all this powers, faculties and personal conveniences, and
+consequently his just claim for remuneration, upon him, who should
+however _unintentionally_, deprive him of the use even of the least of
+them. If the servant had a right to his _tooth_ and the use _of_ 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 _fraction_, and if it was his to
+hold, to use, and to have pay for; he had a right to the _sum total_,
+and it was his to hold, to use, and to have pay for.
+
+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.
+
+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 "_do justice_" to others? By doing injustice to
+_them_? Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back
+_their own_? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire"
+by robbing them of _theirs_? 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 _Aristides_ in justice, then illustrious examples,
+patriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway
+against human perverseness!
+
+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 _particular_ kind of service, _all_ kinds; and
+a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal
+ministering to man in a _certain_ 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
+_a brute_, what would be a meet return for the services of _man?_--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
+_reward_. 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 _same_
+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 the same breath, authorize
+them to "use his service without wages;" force him to work and ROB HIM
+OF HIS EARNINGS?
+
+
+
+IV.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY?
+
+This topic has been unavoidably somewhat anticipated, in the foregoing
+discussion, but a variety of additional considerations remain to be
+noticed.
+
+I. 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_. 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 _servants_ were taken in _no instance_. 2. _Servants were
+never given as pledges_. _Property_ of all sorts was pledged for value
+received; household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets,
+personal ornaments, &c., but no servants. 3. _Servants were not put into
+the hands of others, or consigned to their keeping_. 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 _beast_," but not "_servants_."
+Ex. xxii. 10. 4. _All lost property was to be restored_. Oxen, asses,
+sheep, raiment, and "all lost things," are specified--servants _not_.
+Deut. xxii 1-3. Besides, the Israelites were forbidden to return the
+runaway servant. Deut. xxiii, 15. 5. _Servants were not sold_. 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 _expelled_ from the household. Luke xvi. 2-4; 2
+Kings v. 20, 27; Gen. xxi. 14. 6 _The Israelites never received servants
+as tribute_. 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
+_servants_, never. 7. _The Israelites never gave away their servants as
+presents_. 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 _gifts_. 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 _no servants_. "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 _articles of property_, 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 _religion_--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!" Again, it may be
+objected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If
+that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ 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 _greatness_ and
+_power_ of any one, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a
+word, if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants;
+if _greatness_, 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 _all_ 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 _great_, and went forward, and grew until he became
+_very great_. For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds,
+and _great store of servants_." In immediate connection with this we
+find Abimelech the king of the Philistines saying to him. "Thou art much
+_mightier_ 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 _do us no
+hurt_." Gen. xxvi. 13, 14, 16, 26, 28, 29.--A plain concession of the
+_power_ which Isaac had both for aggression and defence in his "great
+store of _servants_;" 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 _riches_ of Abraham and his sons, they say, "Shall not
+their _cattle_ and their _substance_ and _every beast of theirs_ 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
+_riches_ 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 _most valuable_ 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 _all that they
+had_. "Their cattle and their goods which they had gotten in the land of
+Canaan," "Their flocks and their herds" are mentioned, but no
+_servants_. And as we have besides a full catalogue of the _household_,
+we know that he took with him no servants. That Jacob _had_ many
+servants before his migration into Egypt, we learn from Gen, xxx. 43;
+xxxii. 5, 16, 19. That he was not the _proprietor_ 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
+_property_. Gen. xlv. 10; xlvi. 1, 32; xlvii. 1. When servants are
+spoken of in connection with _mere property_, the terms used to express
+the latter do not include the former. The Hebrew word _mikne_, is an
+illustration. It is derived from _kana_, to procure, to buy, and its
+meaning is, a _possession, wealth, riches_. It occurs more than forty
+times in the Old Testament, and is applied always to _mere property_,
+generally to domestic animals, but never to servants. In some instances,
+servants are mentioned in distinction from the _mikne_. "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 _souls_ were a part of Abraham's _substance_
+(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 "_the souls that they had gotten?_" 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] 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,[B] "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 _persons_ 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 _persons_ of his
+house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his _substance_ which
+he had got in the land of Canaan, and went into the country from the
+face of his brother Jacob. For their _riches_ were more than that they
+might dwell together; and the land could not bear them because of their
+_cattle_." Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7.
+
+[Footnote 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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.]
+
+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 _betrothed as a wife_,
+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 _both_ 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 _servant_ 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 _chiefest seat_ at the
+table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of Kish, Saul's father; not the
+steward or the chief of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but "_one_ of
+the servants;" _any_ 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 "_stood before him_." "And Saul sent to Jesse, saying,
+let David, I pray thee, _stand before me_." 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, _was
+the son of a_ 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.
+
+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 _rights_ 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 _free speech_ 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 _despised_ 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 _contended_ 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.
+
+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 _him_? and
+did not one fashion us in the womb." In the next verse Job glories in
+the fact that he has not "_withheld from the poor their desire_." Is it
+the "desire" of the poor to be _compelled_ by the rich to work for them,
+and without _pay_?
+
+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. _It was voluntary_. 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. _They were not domestic servants in the families of
+the Israelites_. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated
+their own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the
+functions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were
+subject to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. 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 _at home_.
+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
+_national tribute_ to the Israelites, for the privilege of residence and
+protection under their government. No service seems to have been
+required of the _females_. 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 _them_ to the
+condition of chattels, if there was _any_ case in which God permitted
+them to do so.
+
+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?
+
+1. _They were not dispersed among the families of Egypt,[A] but formed a
+separate community_. Gen. xlvi. 34. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi.
+7; iv. 29; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5; vi. 14. 2. _They had the exclusive
+possession of the land of Goshen,[B] "the best part of the land" of
+Egypt_. 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. _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were
+_houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 7, 22, the two side _posts_, and the
+upper door _posts_, and the lintel of the houses are mentioned. Each
+family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_. 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. _They owned "flocks and herds," and "very
+much cattle_." Ex. xii. 4, 6, 32, 37, 38. From the fact that "_every
+man_" 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 _suffice_ them." As these six
+hundred thousand were only the _men_ "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. _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
+_tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16,
+18. 6. _They had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own
+time._ Ex. iii. 16, 18; xii. 6; ii. 9; and iv. 27, 29-31. _They seem to
+have practised 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; and both males and females were able
+to read and write. Deut. xi. 18-20; xvii. 19; xxvii. 3. 10. _Service
+seems to have been exacted from none but adult males_. 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.
+_Their food was abundant and of great variety_. 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 _there_ 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 _at any one time_. 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 _eight weeks_. 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 _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_) they
+exacted it of them in brick making; and labor might have been exacted
+only from the _poorer_ 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. 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 "quart of corn a-day," the legal allowance of food![C] their
+_only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ shirt and _one_ pair of
+pantaloons!"[D]_two hours and a half_ only, for rest and refreshment in
+the twenty-four![E]--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfit for human
+residence, with but one apartment, where both sexes and all ages herd
+promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field.[F] Add to this,
+the ignorance, and degradation;[G] 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 those believe who can, that God commissioned
+his people to rob others of _all_ their rights, while he denounced
+against them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_
+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 _Lawgiver_,
+did he _create_ 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?"
+
+[Footnote C: 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 _peck of
+corn a week._" The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser of May 30,
+1788, says, "a _single peck of corn a week, or the like measure of
+rice_, is the ordinary quantity of provision for a _hard-working_ slave;
+to which a small quantity of meat is occasionally, though _rarely_,
+added."
+
+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 _great part_ of them
+go _half naked_ and _half starved_ much of the time." See Minutes of the
+American Convention, convened in Baltimore, Oct. 25, 1826.
+
+Rev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee, and for many years a preacher
+in slave states, says of the food of slaves, "It _often_ happens that
+what will _barely keep them alive_, is all that a cruel avarice will
+allow them. Hence, in some instances, their allowance has been reduced
+to a _single pint of corn each_, 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. _Thousands of them are pressed with the gnawings of cruel
+hunger during their whole lives._" Rankin's Letters on Slavery, pp. 57,
+58.
+
+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 _hominy_, or baked
+into corn bread. The other six months, they are fed upon the sweet
+potatoe. Meat, when given, is only by way of _indulgence or favor_."
+_See "Refutation of the Calumnies circulated against the Southern and
+Western States," by a South Carolinian. Charleston_, 1822.
+
+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
+_good deal of suffering_ from hunger. On many plantations, and
+particularly in Louisiana, the slaves are in a condition of _almost
+utter famishment_ during a great portion of the year."
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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, _you doom them to scarcity and hunger_. 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 _where they are_ 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. ]
+
+
+[Footnote D: 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 "_he knew_ 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." Rev. John Rankin
+says, in his Letters on slavery, page 57, "In every slaveholding state,
+_many slaves suffer extremely_, both while they labor and while they
+sleep, _for want of clothing_ 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 _on the cold ground they must lie without covering, and shiver
+while they slumber_." ]
+
+
+[Footnote E: See law of Louisiana, act of July 7, 1806, Martin's Digest,
+6, 10-12. The law of South Carolina permits the master to _compel_ 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 _four hours_ after sunset!--See 2 Brevard's Digest, 243. The
+preamble of this law commences thus: "Whereas, _many_ owners of slaves
+_do confine them so closely to hard labor that they have not sufficient
+time for natural rest:_ 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:--
+
+"The labor of Slaves in Louisiana is _not_ severe, unless it be at the
+rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months, then they
+work _both night and day_. 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, _"Both in summer and winter_ the slaves must
+be _in the field_ by the _first dawn of day."_ And yet he says, "the
+labor of the slave is _not severe_, except at the rolling of sugars!"
+The work abounds in eulogies of slavery.
+
+In the "History of South Carolina and Georgia," vol. 1, p. 120, is the
+following: "_So laborious_ is the task of raising, beating, and cleaning
+rice, that had it been possible to obtain European servants in
+sufficient numbers, _thousands and tens of thousands_ MUST HAVE
+PERISHED."
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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 _be in the field as soon as it
+is light enough for them to see to work_, and remain there until it is
+_so dark that they cannot see_. This is the case at all seasons of the
+year."
+
+President Edwards, in the sermon already extracted from, says, "The
+slaves are kept at hard labor from _five o'clock in the morning till
+nine at night_, excepting time to eat twice during the day."
+
+Hon. R.J. Turnbull, a South Carolina slaveholder, already quoted,
+speaking of the harvesting of cotton, says: _"All the pregnant women_
+even, on the plantation, and weak and _sickly_ negroes incapable of
+other labor, are then _in requisition_." * * * See "Refutation of the
+Calumnies circulated against the Southern and Western States," by a
+South Carolinian. ]
+
+
+[Footnote F: A late number of the "Western Medical Reformer" contains a
+dissertation by a Kentucky physician, on _Cachexia Africana_, or African
+consumption, in which the writer says--
+
+"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 _crowded_
+together in a _small hut_, 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."
+
+Hon. R.J. Turnbull, of South Carolina, whose testimony on another point
+has been given above, says of the slaves, that they live in "_clay
+cabins_, 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 _cannot_ 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. ]
+
+
+[Footnote G: 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." 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
+_will_ not use the means to have it read and explained to them." Jones'
+Sermon, pp. 7, 9.
+
+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 _two millions_ of _human beings_, in the condition of
+HEATHEN, and, in some respects, _in a worse condition_!" * * * "From
+long continued and close observation, we believe that their moral and
+religious condition is such, as that they may justly be considered the
+_heathen_ of this Christian country, and will _bear comparison with
+heathen in any country in the world_." * * * "The negroes are destitute
+of the privileges of the gospel, and _ever will be under the present
+state of things."_ Report, &c., p. 4.
+
+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 _extensive as our influence_, as appalling as the valley of death."
+
+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.
+
+"_Augusta, Jan. 29, 1835._
+
+"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 _left their souls to perish_, say
+when they go with them to the judgment of the great day?"
+
+"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 _without the pale of Christendom_. 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."
+
+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
+_general_ 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.)"
+
+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. _Chastity is no virtue among
+them_--its violation neither injures female character in their own
+estimation, or that of their master or mistress--no instruction is ever
+given, _no censure pronounced_. I speak not of the world. I SPEAK OF
+CHRISTIAN FAMILIES GENERALLY."
+
+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 _heathens_.
+* * 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 _perhaps_ their house
+servants; while those called "field hands" live, and labor, and die,
+without being told by their _pious_ masters (?) that Jesus Christ died
+to save sinners."
+
+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. ]
+
+We now proceed to examine the various objections which will doubtless be
+set in array against all the foregoing conclusions.
+
+
+
+OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+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 _cause_ desperate, and themselves.
+Meanwhile their invocations for help to "those good old slaveholders and
+patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,"[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 _Cain-mark_, 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!
+
+[Footnote 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. "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."
+
+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 _lord_ over thy
+brethren and let thy mother's sons _bow down_ to thee." And afterwards,
+addressing Esau, he says, speaking of the birth-right immunities
+confirmed to Jacob, "Behold I have made him thy _Lord_ and all his
+brethren have I GIVEN TO HIM FOR SERVANTS!"
+
+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 _children_ as slaves and bequeathing them as
+property to his heirs! Better still, it proves that the favorite
+practice amongst our slaveholders of bequeathing their _colored_
+children to those of a different hue, was a "Divine institution," for
+Isaac "_gave_" Esau, who was "_red_ all over," to Jacob, "_as a
+servant_." 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 _property_, and the rest, their _proprietors_, 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 _rightful_ property after he was "given to him" by
+Isaac "for a servant," the difference in _hair_ as well as color, is
+expressly stated by inspiration!)
+
+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 _designedly_ neglecting this authoritative
+precedent, and their admirable zeal to perpetuate patriarchal fashions,
+proves this seeming neglect, a mere _oversight_: 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 _some_ of his children, all his
+slaves, to add a supplement, informing them that such and such and such
+of them were their _brothers and sisters_. Doubtless it would be at
+first a sore trial also, but what _pious_ slaveholder would not be
+sustained under it by the reflection that he was humbly following in the
+footsteps of his illustrious patriarchal predecessors!
+
+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 _concubinage_, 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. ]
+
+OBJECTION I. "_Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto
+his brethren._" Gen. ix. 25.
+
+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 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, _assume_ as usual all the points
+in debate. 1. That _slavery_ was prophesied, rather than mere _service_
+to others, and _individual_ bondage rather than _national_ subjection
+and tribute. 2. That the _prediction_ of crime justifies it; or at least
+absolves those whose crimes fulfil it. How piously the Pharaohs might
+have quoted the prophecy, "_Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that
+is not theirs, and they shall afflict them four hundred years._" 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 _named_,
+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 "_younger_ son" cannot be Canaan, as he was the _grandson_ of
+Noah, and therefore it must be Ham. We answer, whoever that "_younger
+son_" was, Canaan alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word
+_Ben_, signifies son, grandson, or _any one_ of the posterity of an
+individual.[A] "_Know ye Laban, the_ SON (grandson) _of Nahor_?" Gen.
+xxix. 5. "_Mephibosheth the_ SON (grandson) _of Saul_." 2 Sam. xix. 24;
+2 Sam. ix. 6. "_The driving of Jehu the_ SON (grandson) _of Nimshi_." 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 "_younger_ son." The order of
+enumeration makes him the _second_ 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 _rule_, in any
+other order the _exception_. 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 _Hakkatan_ rendered "the
+_younger_," means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isa. lx.
+22. "A LITTLE ONE _shall become a thousand_." Isa. xxii. 24. "_All
+vessels of_ SMALL _quantity_." Ps. cxv. 13. "_He will bless them that
+fear the Lord both_ SMALL _and great_." Ex. xviii, 22. "_But every_
+SMALL _matter they shall judge_." It would be a literal rendering of
+Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus, "when Noah knew what his little
+son,"[B] or grandson (_Beno Hakkatan_) "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 _fraction_ 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 _at home_, we answer: _It is false in point of fact_,
+though zealously bruited often to serve a turn; and _if it were true_,
+how does it help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan, a
+servant of servants shall he be _unto his_ BRETHREN.," not unto
+_himself!_
+
+[Footnote A: So _av_, the Hebrew word for father, signifies any
+ancestor, however remote. 2 Chron. xvii. 3; xxviii. 1; xxxiv. 2; Dan. v.
+2.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: The French follows the same analogy; _grandson_ being
+_petit fils_ (little son.)]
+
+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 offence should not be
+_capital_? 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 _murder_?
+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 _the intent_, 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 _motive_ and find out whether
+the master _designed_ to kill. 1. "If a man smite his servant with a
+_rod_."--The instrument used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num.
+xxxv. 16-18. A _rod_, not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any
+other death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to
+_kill_ would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a
+_rod_ for its weapon. But if the servant "_die under his hand_," then
+the unfitness of the instrument, is point blank against him; for,
+striking with a _rod_ so as to cause death, presupposed very many blows
+and great violence, and this kept up till the death-gasp, showed an
+_intent to kill_. Hence "He shall _surely_ be punished." But if he
+continued a day or two, the _length of time that he lived_, the _kind_
+of instrument used, and the master's pecuniary interest in his _life_,
+("he is his _money_,") all made a strong case of presumptive evidence,
+showing that the master did not _design_ to kill. Further, the word
+_nakam_, here rendered _punished_, occurs thirty-five times in the Old
+Testament, and in almost every place is translated "_avenge_," in a few,
+"_to take vengeance_," or "_to revenge_," and in this instance ALONE,
+"_punish_." As it stands in our translation, the pronoun preceding it,
+refers to the _master_, whereas it should refer to the _crime_, and the
+word rendered _punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. 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, _by avenging it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of
+the servant shall be _avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the
+next verse, "If he continue a day or two," his death is not to be
+avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as in that case the crime was to
+be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not _murder_. In the following verse,
+another case of personal injury is stated, for which the injurer is to
+pay _a sum of money_; 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 _avenged_," 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 _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury,
+in the following verse, God says, "He shall surely be _fined_,
+(_anash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges determine." The simple meaning
+of the word _anash_, 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 (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of silver and
+a talent of gold." That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither
+imprisonment, nor stripes, nor a fine but that it was _taking the
+master's life_ we infer, 1. From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. 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 _uttermost_." 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 _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an
+_article of property_. 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) _is_ my body;" "all they (the Israelites)
+_are_ brass and tin;" this (water) _is_ the blood of the men who went in
+jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord God _is_ a sun;" "the seven good
+ears _are_ seven years;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "God
+_is_ a consuming fire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A passion for the exact
+_literalities_ of the Bible is too amiable, not to be gratified in this
+case. The words in the original are (_Kaspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ 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
+_solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble
+withal--reasoning against _"forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and,
+Deut. xxiii. 15, quite outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase,
+"_He is his money_," is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since,
+if the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his
+pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the
+fact of his living sometime after the injury_, (if the master _meant_ to
+kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it.) all together make a
+strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master from _intent to
+kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One is, that as
+the master might dispose of his _property_ 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 _equally_ his property, and
+the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely
+punished" for destroying _his own property_! The other inference is,
+that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of
+_intent to kill_, 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 _pecuniary
+loss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ 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 _adequate_ to the desert of the master,
+admits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ 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 _new_
+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 _pecuniary loss_ 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,--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same_. 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 _tooth_? Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_,
+the loss of the servant's services was only a part of the
+punishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the
+main punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the
+_community_. To set the servant _free_, 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, 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 his tooth--thus redressing the _public_ 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.
+
+
+
+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.
+
+The _points_ 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."
+
+We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from these
+terms.
+
+1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called
+"_bondmen_," while others are called "_servants_," 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 "_ebedh_," the plural of which is here translated
+"_bondmen_," is often applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_ (bondman,
+slave?) whom I uphold." Isa. xlii. 1. "Behold my _servant_ (Christ)
+shall deal prudently." Isa. lii. 13. "And he said it is a light thing
+that thou (Christ) shouldst be my _servant_." Isa. xlix. 6. "To a
+_servant_ of rulers." Isa. xlix. 7. "By his knowledge shall my righteous
+_servant_ (Christ) justify many." Is. liii. 11. "Behold I will bring
+forth my _servant_ 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 _servant_ unto this people, then they will be thy _servants_
+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 _individuals
+or families_, about thirty-five times in the Old Testament. To designate
+_tributaries_ about twenty-five times. To designate the _subjects of
+government_, 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 _merely to designate them as the performers of such service_,
+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 _force_, 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 _lord_
+and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, and to the Messiah. To argue from
+the meaning of the word _ebedh_ 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 _any_ 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 _abadh_, to serve,
+answering to the noun _ebedh_ (servant). It is used in the Old Testament
+to describe the _serving_ 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 _worshippers_ more than forty times, of
+_tributaries_, about thirty five, and of servants or domestics, about
+_ten_.
+
+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 _meant slave_? 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 "_ebedh_," yet he "_owned_" (!) twenty _ebedhs_!
+In our language, we have both _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we
+have both the _things_, and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a
+sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but
+our dictionaries give us none. Why? Because there is no such _thing_.
+But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _ebedh_
+if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. Their _national_
+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 _heathen laws and usages_, proclaimed their liabilities; their
+_locality_ made a _specific_ term unnecessary. But if the Israelites had
+not only _servants_, but a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning
+slave_, 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.
+
+2. "BUY." The _buying_ of servants, is discussed at length. pp. 17-23.
+To that discussion the reader is referred. We will add in this place but
+a single consideration. This regulation requiring the Israelites to
+_"buy"_ servants of the heathen, prohibited their taking them without
+buying. _Buying_ supposes two parties: a _price_ demanded by one and
+paid by the other, and consequently, the _consent_ of both buyer and
+seller, to the transaction. Of course the command to the Israelites to
+_buy_ servants of the heathen, prohibited their getting them unless they
+first got _somebody's_ consent to the transaction, and paid to
+_somebody_ a fair equivalent. Now, who were these _somebodies_? This at
+least is plain, they were not _Israelites_, but heathen. "Of _them_
+shall ye buy." Who then were these _somebodies_, whose right was so
+paramount, that _their_ consent must be got and the price paid must go
+into _their_ pockets? Were they the persons themselves who became
+servants, or some _other_ persons. "Some _other_ 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.
+
+"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 _neighbors_, get _their_
+consent that you may have him, settle the terms with _them_, and pay to
+them a fair equivalent. If it is not _their_ choice to let him go, I
+charge you not to take him on your peril. If _they_ consent, and you pay
+_them_ 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 _neighbors_ well for
+him, and respect _their_ free choice in taking him, for to deprive a
+heathen man by force and without pay of the _use of himself_ 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."
+
+3. "FOREVER." This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve during
+their life time, and their posterity from generation to generation.[A]
+No such idea is contained in the passage. The word "forever," instead of
+defining the length of _individual_ service, proclaims the permanence of
+the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their
+_permanent domestics_ 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 _always_ get your _permanent_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: One would think that the explicit testimony of our Lord
+should for ever forestall all cavil on this point. "_The servant abideth
+not in the house_ FOR EVER, but the Son, abideth ever." John viii. 35.]
+
+That "_forever_" refers to the permanent relations of a _community_,
+rather than to the services of _individuals_, is a fair inference from
+the form of the expression, "Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the
+_heathen_. 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 _these individuals_
+surviving those _after_ whom they are to live, the language used applies
+more naturally to a _body_ of people, than to _individual_ servants.
+Besides _perpetual_ service cannot be argued from the term _forever_.
+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 _Israelitish_ inhabitants alone. The command
+is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL _the inhabitants
+thereof_." 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 _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_.[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 _forever_ did refer to _individual_ service, we
+have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee. The same
+word defines the length of time which _Jewish_ 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 "_forever_" 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 _forever_, in the 46th verse, respects the
+_general arrangement_, and not _individual service_ the objection does
+not touch the argument. Besides, in the 46th verse, the word used is
+_Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that may be. Whereas
+in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning, a _cutting off_, or _to
+be cut off_; and the import of it is, that the owner of an inheritance
+shall not forfeit his _proprietorship_ 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 _redeem_ it, and even if that be not done,
+it shall not be "_cut off_," but shall revert to him at the jubilee.
+
+[Footnote 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 _free holders_ 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.]
+
+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 _nations_, and not to the
+_individual_ servants procured from the senations. The holding of
+servants as a _possession_ is discussed at large pp. 47-64. To what is
+there advanced we here subjoin a few brief considerations. We have
+already shown, that servants could not he held as a _property_
+possession, and inheritance; that they became such of their _own
+accord_, were paid wages, released from their regular labor nearly _half
+the days in each year_, thoroughly _instructed_ and _protected_ 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 _just such a condition_! 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 _nahal_ and _nahala_,
+inherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify _articles of
+property_. "The people answered the king and said, "we have none
+_inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean
+gravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of
+_property_? "Children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps.
+cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine _inheritance_."
+Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children,
+does he make them _articles of property_? Are forgiveness, and
+chattel-making, synonymes? "_I_ am their _inheritance_." Ezek. xliv. 28.
+"I shall give thee the heathen for thine _inheritance_." Ps. ii. 18. See
+also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov.
+xiv. 18.
+
+The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"_possession_," has
+been already discussed, pp. 47-64, 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 _joined_ with them, and
+_they shall CLEAVE to the house of Jacob_. And the people shall take
+them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel shall
+_possess_ 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."
+
+We learn from these verses, 1st. That these servants which were to be
+"_possessed_" 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 _possess_
+them for servants," i.e. shall _have_ them for servants.
+
+In the passage under consideration, "they shall be your _possession_,"
+the original word translated "possession" is _ahuzza_. The same word is
+used in Gen. xlvii. 11. "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren,
+and gave them a _possession_ in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlvii. 11. In
+what sense was Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites? Answer, in the
+sense of _having it to live in_, not in the sense of having it as
+_owners_. In what sense were the Israelites to _possess_ these nations,
+and _take them_ as an _inheritance for their children_? 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 _them_ shall ye buy male and female
+domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners 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 permanent
+resource." "And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ source of supply to
+whom your children after you shall resort for servants. ALWAYS, _of
+them_ 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 _class_ of persons from
+which they were to get their supply of servants, and the _way_ in which
+they were to get them.[A]
+
+[Footnote 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 _a
+Stranger to slavery_. The _buying_ of slaves _alone_ is permitted, but
+not stealing them."
+
+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 _slaves_, we have at all events, the
+testimony that the Israelites were prohibited to _subject_ a Stranger to
+that condition, or in other words, the free choice of the servant was
+not to be compelled. ]
+
+
+
+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.
+
+As only _one_ class is called "_hired_," it is inferred that servants of
+the other class were _not paid_ 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 "_hired_" is synonymous with _paid_, and that those
+servants not _called_ "hired," were _not paid_ for their labor, is a
+mere assumption. The meaning of the English verb to _hire_, is to
+procure for a _temporary_ use at a certain price--to engage a person to
+temporary service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew word
+"_saukar_." It is not used when the procurement of _permanent_ service
+is spoken of. Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who
+constituted a stationary part of the family, have been designated by the
+same term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinctions in
+this matter, are familiar as table-talk. In many families the domestics
+perform only the _regular_ 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 _paid_ help.) _Both_ classes are _paid_. One is
+permanent, and the other occasional and temporary, and _therefore_ in
+this case called "hired."[A] A variety of particulars are recorded
+distinguishing, _hired_ from _bought_ 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. "_Bought_" servants were paid in advance, (a
+reason for their being called _bought_,) and those that went out at the
+seventh year received a _gratuity_. Deut. xv. 12, 13. 2. The "hired"
+were paid _in money_, the "bought" received their _gratuity_, at least,
+in grain, cattle, and the product of the vintage. Deut. xv. 14. 3. The
+"hired" _lived_ 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
+_beside_ their wages. 5. Hired servants were expected to work more
+_constantly_, and to have more _working hours_ 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 _full_ day. No subtraction of
+time being made from it. So _a hireling's year_ signifies an entire year
+without abatement. Job. vii. 1; xiv. 6; Isa. xvi. 14; xxi. 16.
+
+[Footnote A: To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings because he is
+not called a _hired_ servant, is profound induction! If I employ a man
+at twelve dollars a month to work my farm, he is my "_hired_" man, but
+if _I give him such a portion of the crop_, or in other words, if he
+works my farm "_on shares_," every farmer knows that he is no longer
+called a "_hired_" 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 "_hired_" laborer, I _rob_ 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.]
+
+The "bought" servants, were, _as a class, superior to the hired_--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 _heir_, come let us kill him, _that the
+inheritance may be ours_." Luke xx. 14. In no instance does a _hired_
+servant inherit his master's estate. 3. Marriages took place between
+servants and their master's daughters. "Sheshan had a _servant_, 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
+_hired_ 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] 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
+_handmaids_, 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 _handmaid_." 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 _handmaid_. Also, Jer. ii. 14. Is Israel a
+servant? Is he a _home-born_?[B] WHY IS HE SPOILED? No such tie seems to
+have existed between _hired_ 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
+_lowest class_ 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 _he is poor_, 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 _hired_ servant thus
+distinguished. The _bought_ 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,
+_for all the goods of his master were in his hand_." 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 _disposal of property_. 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 _discretionary_
+power, was "accused of wasting his master's goods," and manifestly
+regulated with his debtors the _terms_ of settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8.
+Such trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.
+
+[Footnote A: "For the _purchased servant_ 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 _purchased_ 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Our translators in rendering it "Is he a home-born SLAVE,"
+were wise beyond what is written.]
+
+The inferior condition of _hired_ 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 _lowest_ 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 _hired_ 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 _hired_ servants." If _hired_ servants were the _superior_ class--to
+bespeak the situation, savored little of that sense of unworthiness that
+seeks the dust with hidden face, and cries "unclean." Unhumbled nature
+_climbs_; 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, _the lowest place_, 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 _hired_
+servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of
+winning beauty and pathos.
+
+It is manifest to every careful student of the Bible, that _one_ 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 _hired_ 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 _humility_, put it on stilts, and set it a
+strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in aping it.
+
+Israelites and Strangers belonged indiscriminately to _each_ class of
+the servants, the _bought_ and the _hired_. That those in the former
+class, whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the
+family circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been
+shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,
+merely _political_, the hired servants from the _Israelites_, were more
+favored than even the bought servants from the _Strangers_. 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. 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. To mitigate as much as possible such a calamity,
+the law released the Israelitish servant at the end of six[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. 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 _Stranger_ to
+_prolong_ his term of service;[B] 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 _permanent employment_, pursued both as a
+_means_ of bettering their own condition, and that of their posterity,
+and as an _end_ for its own sake, conferring on them privileges, and a
+social estimation not otherwise attainable.
+
+[Footnote 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
+_graduated_ 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 _becoming servants_ proclaimed such a state of their affairs,
+as demanded the labor of a _course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: The Stranger had the same inducements to prefer a long term
+of service that those have who cannot own land, to prefer a long
+_lease_.]
+
+We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are
+called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_,) 1. They
+followed it as a _permanent business_. 2. Their term of service was
+_much longer_ 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 _tributaries_, required to pay an
+annual tax to the government, either in money, or in public service,
+(called a _"tribute of bond-service;"_) in other words, all the
+Strangers were _national servants_, to the Israelites, and the same
+Hebrew word used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates
+_national_ 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. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought
+servants, was in their _kinds_ of service. The servants from the
+Strangers were properly the _domestics_, 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
+_agricultural_. 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, "_And behold Saul
+came after the herd out of the field_." 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 _was "threshing wheat"_ 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 _Jewish_ 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.[C] In short, it was in the earlier ages of the Mosaic system,
+practically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and a rigor grievous to be borne,
+as it annihilated a visible distinction between the descendants of
+Abraham and the Strangers. _To guard this and another fundamental
+distinction_, 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 _servitude_." In the Septuagint, "He shall not
+serve thee with the service of a _domestic_." 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."[D] The
+meaning of the passage is, _thou shalt not assign him to the same grade,
+nor put him to the same service, with permanent domestics._ The
+remainder of the regulation is--_"But as an hired servant and as a
+sojourner shall he be with thee."_ 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 _right_, 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 _dependence_ 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 _keeping back their wages._ To
+have taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, would
+have been pre-eminent "_rigor_;" 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 _assignment_ of his inheritance,
+but was working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its
+possession and control. But it was that of _the head of a family_, 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 _Israelite--Abraham is his father_ 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, _thou shalt not serve thyself with him,
+with the service of a servant_, guaranties his political privileges, and
+a kind and grade of service comporting with his character and relations
+as an Israelite. And "as a _hired_ 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 _alleviate_ 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 _irrespective_ 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 _rigorous_ in the extreme.[E] 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 _serve_ with rigor." This
+rigor is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted and the _mode_ 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.
+
+[Footnote C: 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote D: 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."]
+
+
+[Footnote E: 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 _social_ estimation. They were regarded according to their
+character and worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin,
+employments and political condition.]
+
+
+
+We are now prepared to review at a glance, the condition of the
+different classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each.
+
+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 _men_, with the rights, interests, hopes
+and destinies of _men_. In all these respects, _all_ classes of servants
+among the Israelites, formed but ONE CLASS. The _different_ classes, and
+the differences in _each_ class, were, 1. _Hired Servants_. This class
+consisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were
+different. The _Israelite_ was an agricultural servant. The Stranger was
+a _domestic_ and _personal_ servant, and in some instances _mechanical_;
+both were occasional and temporary. Both lived in their own families,
+their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work was done.
+2. _Bought Servants_, (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] and neither was temporary. The Israelitish servant, with the
+exception of the _freeholder_, 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 _Jewish_ 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 _freeholder_ 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.
+
+[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, 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. This gratuity at the close of the service shews the _principle_ of
+the relation; _equivalent_ for value received. ]
+
+It should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the
+Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal, natural and
+religious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed
+by those of their own people who were _not_ servants. 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 _political_ and _national_. 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 _unjewish_.
+
+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 _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_. 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.
+
+
+
+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 _descendant of Abraham_ and a _Stranger_, 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 _permanent female
+domestics_; but her marriage did not release her master from _his_ 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
+_grade_ and _term_ of service, nor impair her obligation to fulfil _her_
+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.[B] 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 _their_
+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.
+
+[Footnote B: 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 _all_ this law which I set before you this day." Deut. iv.
+8.]
+
+
+
+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] 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 _one_ 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 _commuted_, 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 _enslave_
+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 _slave_, cheapens to nothing
+_universal human nature_, 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 _foundation_, the everlasting distinction between persons and
+things? To make a man a chattel, is not the _punishment_, but the
+_annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and, so far as it goes, of _all_
+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 _doctrines_. 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
+_individuals_, or merely of the _body politic_? The word _haram_, to
+destroy, signifies _national_, as well as individual destruction; the
+destruction of _political_ existence, equally with _personal_; of
+governmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects.
+Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to
+mean _personal_ 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 _destroy_ all
+the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies
+_turn their backs unto thee_." Ex. xxiii. 27. Here "_all their enemies_"
+were to _turn their backs_, and "_all the people_" to be "_destroyed_."
+Does this mean that God would let all their _enemies_ escape, but kill
+their _friends_, or that he would _first_ 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 _destroyed_ them from before
+you." In the 18th verse of the same chapter, it is said, "The Lord
+_drave out_ 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
+_dispossessed_ the Amorite which was in it." If these commands required
+the destruction of all the _individuals,_ 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 _individual extermination_ of those whose lives and
+interests it thus protects? These laws were given to the Israelites,
+long _before_ they entered Canaan; and they must have inferred from
+them, that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land were to _continue
+in it_, 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 "_dwelt among
+them_," 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 _stood not a man_ of _all_ their enemies before them." Josh. xxi.
+44. How can this be if the command to destroy, destroy utterly, &c.,
+enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the command to drive out,
+unconditional expulsion from the country, rather than their expulsion
+from the _possession_ or _ownership_ 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.[B] Josh. xxiii. 12, 13-16; 1. Sam. xii. 25. The Israelites _did_
+serve other Gods, and Jehovah _did_ execute upon them his
+threatenings--and thus himself _interpreted_ these threatenings. He
+subverted their _government_, dispossessed them of their land, divested
+them of national power, and made them _tributaries_, but did not
+_exterminate_ 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 _acquiesced_ 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.[C] 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 _kill_ him, straitly charged them, "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. 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 _all_ the Canaanites had
+thus submitted themselves to the Jewish theocracy, and conformed to the
+requirements of the Mosaic institutes, would not _all_ have been spared
+upon the same principle that _one_ was? Again, look at the multitude of
+_tributaries_ 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.[D] 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 _utterly destroy_ 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 _utterly destroyed_ 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 _cut off every male_" 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 _cities_, (and even those
+conditionally,) because, only the inhabitants of _cities_ are
+specified--"of the _cities_ 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
+_around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God commanded them, in certain
+cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with _any_ of them would be
+perilous--with the inhabitants of the _cities_ peculiarly, and of the
+_Canaanitish_ 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 _tributaries_--but if they came
+out against Israel in battle, the _men_ 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 _afar off_. 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 _whole
+system of directions preceding,_ commencing with the 10th, whereas it
+manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the 12th, 13th,
+and, 14th, making a distinction between those _Canaanitish_ cities that
+_fought_, and the cities _afar off_ that fought--in one case destroying
+the males and females, and in the other, the _males_ only. The offer of
+peace, and the _conditional preservation_, were as really guarantied to
+_Canaanitish_ 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 _not_ utterly
+exterminate them. Now, if entire and unconditional extermination was the
+command of God, it was _never_ obeyed by the Israelites, consequently
+the truth of God stood pledged to consign _them_ 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 * * _I shall do
+unto you as I thought to do unto them_." Num. xxxiii. 55, 56. As the
+Israelites were not exterminated, we infer that God did not pronounce
+_that_ doom upon them; and as he _did_ pronounce upon them the _same_
+doom, whatever it was, which they should _refuse_ to visit upon the
+Canaanites, it follows that the doom of unconditional _extermination_
+was _not_ 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 _not_ come out against Israel in battle, they
+would have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been "_destroyed
+utterly_." The great design was to _transfer the territory_ of the
+Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute sovereignty
+in every respect_; 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 _denationalized,_ 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;[E] 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. "_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;_ THEN SHALL
+THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE."
+
+[Footnote 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
+_falsified_.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: 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 _perish_, as the nations which the Lord
+destroyed before your face, _so_ 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 _destroyed_, and until thou perish
+quickly." "The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee until he
+have _consumed_ thee." "They (the 'sword,' 'blasting,' &c.) shall pursue
+thee until thou _perish_." "From heaven shall it come down upon thee
+until thou be _destroyed_." "All these curses shall come upon thee till
+thou be _destroyed_." "He shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck until
+he have _destroyed_ 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 _destroyed_ thee."
+All these, with other similar threatenings of _destruction_, are
+contained in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deut. See verses 20-25, 45,
+48, 51. In the _same_ chapter God declares that as a punishment for the
+same transgressions, the Israelites shall "be _removed_ 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote C: 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 _exterminate all the Canaanites_,
+their pledge to save them alive, was neither a repeal of the statute,
+nor absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ 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 _had_ passed their word
+to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than God's command?
+So Saul seems to have passed _his_ 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
+_remaining in any of the coast of Israel_, let seven of his sons be
+delivered," &c. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-6.]
+
+
+[Footnote D: 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.]
+
+
+[Footnote E: 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.]
+
+[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 _indices_, 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.]
+
+
+
+
+
+NO. 5.
+
+
+
+THE
+
+
+ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
+
+
+THE
+
+
+POWER OF CONGRESS
+
+
+OVER THE
+
+DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+REPRINTED FROM THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, WITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+NEW-YORK:
+
+PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
+
+NO. 143 NASSAU-STREET.
+
+1838.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+This periodical contains 3 1/2 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 6 cts.;
+over 100, 10 cts.
+
+
+
+POWER OF CONGRESS
+
+
+OVER THE
+
+
+DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
+
+
+
+A civilized community presupposes a government of law. If that
+government be a republic, its citizens are the sole _sources_, as well
+as the _subjects_ 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, _in all cases whatsoever_, over
+such District." Congress may make laws for the District "in all
+_cases_," not of all _kinds_; not all _laws_ whatsoever, but laws "in
+all _cases_ whatsoever." The grant respects the _subjects_ of
+legislation, _not_ the moral nature of the laws. The law-making power
+every where is subject to _moral_ 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.
+
+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 _any where_. The exact
+import, therefore, of the clause "in all cases whatsoever," is, _on all
+subjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation_. 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.
+
+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 _single_ case only, why did they
+provide for "_all_ cases whatsoever?" Besides, this clause was opposed
+in many of the state conventions, because the grant of power was
+extended to "_all_ cases whatsoever," instead of being restricted to
+police regulations _alone_. 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 _police_ 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 _unlimited, unbounded authority_?" 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 _generally_, 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." (_See debates in the
+Virginia Convention_, p. 320.) In the forty-third number of the
+"Federalist," Mr. Madison says: "The indispensable necessity of
+_complete_ authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence
+with it."
+
+Finally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to
+the obvious import of its _terms_, and not in such a way as to restrict
+it to _police_ 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 _police and good government_ of said
+District," _which amendment was rejected_. Fourteen other amendments,
+proposed at the same time by Virginia, were _adopted_.
+
+The former part, of the clause under consideration, "Congress shall have
+power to exercise _exclusive_ legislation," gives sole jurisdiction, and
+the latter part, "in all cases whatsoever," defines the _extent_ of it.
+Since, then, Congress is the _sole_ 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 _any_ where, Congress is competent to do in the District
+of Columbia.
+
+
+
+STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.
+
+Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to argue the _real
+question_ at issue. 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?_
+
+In every government, absolute sovereignty exists _somewhere_. In the
+United States it exists primarily with the _people_, and _ultimate_
+sovereignty _always_ exists with them. In each of the States, the
+legislature possesses a _representative_ 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
+_people_ 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
+_the people_ 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 _the people_, clothed with all their functions, and as such
+competent, _during the continuance of the grant_, 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 _somewhere_--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."
+
+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
+_sovereignty_ 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 _it alone_. Maryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution
+_before_ 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, _secondly_, from the fact, that _slavery as a legal system, is
+the creature of legislation_. The law by _creating_ slavery, not only
+affirmed its _existence_ to be within the sphere and under the control
+of legislation, but equally, the _conditions_ and _terms_ of its
+existence, and the _question_ whether or not it _should_ exist. Of
+course legislation would not travel _out_ of its sphere, in abolishing
+what is _within_ 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 _yourself_, 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?
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?
+
+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. [_See__Brevard's Digest_, 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.
+
+The law of North Carolina prohibits the "immoderate" correction of
+slaves. If it has power to prohibit _immoderate_ correction, it can
+prohibit _moderate_ correction--_all_ 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.
+
+The Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power to make
+laws "to oblige the owners of slaves to _treat them with humanity_." 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 _humane_ treatment of the slaves. This grant of
+power to those legislatures empowers them to decide what _is_ and what
+is _not_ "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 _particulars_ of such treatment--gives power to exact it in all
+_respects--requiring_ certain acts, and _prohibiting_ others--maiming,
+branding, chaining together, allowing each but a quart of corn a day,[A]
+and but "one shirt and one pair of pantaloons" in six
+months[B]--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 "_humane_ 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 _oblige_"
+masters to practise "humane treatment"--they have the _power_ to
+_prohibit such_ treatment, and are bound to do it.
+
+[Footnote A: Law of North Carolina, Haywood's Manual, 524-5.]
+
+
+[Footnote B: Law of Louisiana, Martin's Digest, 610.]
+
+The law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the holder,
+if he be also a _land_ holder, to separate them from the soil.[C] If it
+has power to prohibit the sale _without_ the soil, it can prohibit the
+sale _with_ it; and if it can prohibit the _sale_ as property, it can
+prohibit the _holding_ as property. Similar laws exist in the French,
+Spanish, and Portuguese colonies.
+
+[Footnote C: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law passed in 1705.
+(_Beverly's Hist. of Va._, 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.]
+
+The law of Louisiana requires the master to give his slaves a certain
+amount of food and clothing, (_Martin's Digest_, 610.) If it can oblige
+the master to give the slave _one_ 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.
+
+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,
+["_Reeve's Law of Baron and Femme_," p. 310-1.] Each of the laws
+enumerated above, does, _in principle_, abolish slavery; and all of them
+together abolish it _in fact_. True, not as a _whole_, and at a
+_stroke_, nor all in one place; but in its _parts_, by piecemeal, at
+divers times and places; thus showing that the abolition of slavery is
+within the boundary of _legislation_.
+
+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 _Constitutions_, 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 _never had_, and what _cannot_ pertain to it!
+The legislatures of those States have no power to abolish slavery,
+simply because their Constitutions have expressly _taken away_ 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 _restrict_ 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.
+
+The slaveholding States have recognised this power in their _laws_. 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 _free_." By a law of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792,
+a slave brought into the state and kept _there a year_, was _free_. The
+Maryland Court of Appeals at the December term 1813 (see case of Stewart
+_vs._ 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 _free_, being _emancipated_ 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 _with the exception of the sixth article which prohibits
+slavery_; 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.
+
+Slaveholding states have asserted this power _in their judicial
+decisions._ 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 _vs._ Coquillon, 14 Martin's La.
+Reps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter
+_vs._ 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 _vs._ Hopper, Washington's Circuit Court Reps. 508. This
+principle was also decided by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky; case of
+Rankin _vs._ Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407; see also, Wilson _vs._
+Isbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts _vs._ Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps.
+566. The State _vs._ Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise
+_vs._ 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.
+
+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 _legislative_ 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 _legislative_
+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 _law_." In a letter to Sir
+John Sinclair, he says: "There are in Pennsylvania, _laws_ for the
+gradual abolition of slavery, which neither Maryland nor Virginia have
+at present, but which nothing is more certain that that they _must
+have_, 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 _it must bear and adopt it_."--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 _name_ is his biography.
+
+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 _abolished_ 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
+_abolish_ 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 _law_.
+
+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."
+
+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
+_extermination_ from amongst us of slavery, is work worthy the
+representatives of a polished and enlightened nation."
+
+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.
+
+"The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on the
+subject of Abolition, was in these words: _Resolved_, 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 _was_ expedient,
+_now_ 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
+_negatived_, 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."
+
+8. _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 Louisiana made the same decision in the case of Forsyth
+_vs._ 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 _vs._ Chexnaider, 20 Martin's Reps. 699.
+
+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 _abridge_ the powers which Congress
+possessed under the articles of confederation?
+
+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 _technic_, in common
+parlance, that the fact of its being _proper slavery_ is overlooked. The
+buying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of the middle
+passage, were mere _incidents_ 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 _all_ the slavery within its
+jurisdiction, but it did abolish all the slavery in _one part_ of its
+jurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to abolish slavery in
+_another_ part of its jurisdiction, especially in that part where it has
+"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?"
+
+9. _The Constitution of the United States recognizes 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 _unconditionally_, 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 _laws_ of the free states. If these
+laws had _no power_ to emancipate, why this constitutional guard to
+prevent it?
+
+The insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists
+that framed the Constitution, to the existence of the _power_, 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 _universal law_,
+and is recognised and protected by all civilized nations; property in
+slaves is, by general consent, an _exception_; hence slaveholders
+insisted upon the insertion of this clause in the United States
+Constitution that they might secure by an _express provision_, that from
+which protection is withheld, by the acknowledged principles of
+universal law.[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 "_persons_, and _held_ to service."
+
+[Footnote 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 _now_ 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 "_for one moment_," under the laws
+of France emancipated an American slave--the case of Fulton, _vs._
+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 "_property_," but
+_self-proprietors_, and that whenever held as property under _law_, it
+is only by _positive legislative acts_, 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.]
+
+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 _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 _statute_ 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 _things_, as
+contra-distinguished from _persons_." 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
+_fundamental_ 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 _devotion to
+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
+embodiment of "_justice_" 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.
+
+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
+_principles themselves_, 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 _vs._
+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."
+[_See__Hall's Law Journal, new series._] Mr. Duponceau, in his
+"Dissertation on the Jurisdiction of Courts in the United States," says,
+"I consider the common law of England the _jus commune_ 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 _vs._ Reed, in 1823, Hawkes' N.C. Reps. 454, says, "a
+law of _paramount obligation to the statute_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _now_ 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.
+
+Is Congress so impotent in its own "exclusive jurisdiction" that it
+_cannot_ "otherwise by law provide?" If it can say, what _shall_ be
+considered property, it can say what shall _not_ 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 _bona
+fide_ 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
+
+
+
+THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN, TILL
+RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED.
+
+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 _inexpediency_ alone, and not because Congress lacked the
+constitutional power. In the debate which preceded the vote, the _power_
+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 _putting a
+stop to the same_."
+
+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
+_expediency_ of providing by _law_ 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.
+
+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, (_slavery_) as upon all
+other subjects of legislation, to exercise _unlimited discretion_."
+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 _unconstitutional_ 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."
+
+"Resolved, That Congress _ought not to interfere_ 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."
+
+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,
+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.
+
+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 _legislative_ 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 _excluding them when free_. See Journal H.R.
+1828-9, p. 174.
+
+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, 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."
+
+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.
+
+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."
+
+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 _implied_ 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
+_implication_. 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 _power_, 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.'"
+
+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 _as it is_. 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.
+
+The Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the _general_
+power of Congress over the subject of slavery, do virtually assert its
+_special_ power within its _exclusive_ jurisdiction.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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" _District_. 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 _here_? Within the
+ten miles square, you have _undoubted power_ to exercise exclusive
+legislation. _Produce a bill to emancipate the slaves in the District of
+Columbia_, or, if you prefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter."
+
+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?"
+
+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] 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 _special_ and _comprehensive_
+legislation which these circumstances peculiarly demanded."
+
+[Footnote 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 _every constitutional barrier should be
+interposed to prevent its further extension_: and that the constitution
+of the United States _clearly gives congress the right_ to require new
+states, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States,
+to _make the prohibition of slavery_ a condition of their admission into
+the Union: Therefore,
+
+"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 _the prohibition of
+slavery_ therein an indispensable condition of admission." ]
+
+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.
+
+After presenting this array of evidence, _direct testimony_ to show that
+the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, has always
+till recently been _universally conceded_, is perhaps quite superfluous.
+We subjoin; however, the following:
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+Finally--an explicit, and unexpected admission, that an "_over-whelming
+majority_" of the _present_ 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:
+
+"The time has arrived when we must have new guarantees under the
+constitution, or the union must be dissolved. _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_, NOT WITHOUT STRONG REASONS, _that the power of Congress
+extends to all of these subjects_."
+
+In another letter, the same correspondent says:
+
+"_The fact is, it is vain to attempt_, AS THE CONSTITUTION IS NOW, _to
+keep the question of slavery out of the halls of Congress_,--until, by
+some decisive action, WE COMPEL SILENCE, or _alter the constitution_,
+agitation and insult is our eternal fate in the confederacy."
+
+
+
+OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+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 _accept_ 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.
+
+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."
+
+"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.
+
+The cession from Virginia was made by act of the Legislature of that
+State on the 3d of December, 1788, in the following words:
+
+"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."
+
+But were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act had _none_.
+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 _soil_, or to affect the
+rights of individuals _therein_, otherwise than the same shall or may be
+transferred by such individuals to the United States."
+
+This specification touching the soil was merely definitive and
+explanatory of that clause in the act of cession, "_full and absolute
+right._" Instead of restraining the power of Congress on _slavery_ and
+other subjects, it even gives it wider scope; for exceptions to _parts_
+of a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the
+exceptions. If it was the _design_ of the proviso to restrict
+congressional action on the subject of _slavery_, why is the _soil
+alone_ 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 _meant_, though nothing was _said_ about it? The subject
+must have been too "delicate," even for the most distant allusion! The
+mystery of silence is solved!!
+
+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 _restricting_ 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, _accepting_ 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 _terms_ 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!
+
+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.
+
+This comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They _knew_ 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 _adopted_ the constitution. And _afterward_, 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
+_supposed_!" &c. Cede it they _did_, 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, _the amount of power over the
+District, lodged in Congress by the constitution_. 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 _not_--and that point is to be settled, not
+by state "suppositions," nor state usages, nor state legislation, but
+_by the terms of the clause themselves_.
+
+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 _declaimers_ 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
+_sovereignty_ mere creatures of _contingency_? Is delegated _authority_
+mere conditional _permission_? Is a _constitutional power_ to be
+exercised by those who hold it, only by popular _sufferance_? 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
+_whole_ people must be had--not that of a majority, however large.
+Majorities, to be authoritative, must be _legal_--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 _every one_ is necessary--and _universal_ 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 _to use_ a power which it _has not_? "It is
+required of a man according to what he _hath_," saith the Scripture. I
+commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would that he had got his
+_logic_ 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, _asking_ Congress to do what it _cannot_ do, gives it the
+power--to pray the exercise of a power that is _not, creates_ it. A
+beautiful theory! Let us work it both ways. If to petition for the
+exercise of a power that is _not_, creates it--to petition against the
+exercise of a power that _is_, 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
+_right_ to abolish slavery, they impose the _duty_; if they confer
+constitutional authority, they create constitutional obligation. If
+Congress _may_ abolish because of an expression of their will, it _must_
+abolish at the bidding of that will. If the people of the District are a
+_source of power_ to Congress, their _expressed 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 _subject_ 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.
+
+"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 _withheld_ 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 _guessing_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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?"
+
+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 _when slavery should cease_ 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.)
+
+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 _general belief_ 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.
+
+The first _general_ 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.
+
+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. _Anthony Benezet stood alone a few years ago in opposing
+negro slavery in Philadelphia_, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS OF THE PROVINCE AS
+WELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST IT."--(Stuart's Life of Sharpe, p.
+21.)
+
+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, _should be willing to extend personal
+liberty to others_, therefore," &c.
+
+October 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: "We,
+for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we
+represent, _firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue,
+honor, and love of our country_, as follows:
+
+"2d Article. _We will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported_
+after the first day of December next, after which time we will _wholly
+discontinue_ 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."
+
+The Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and the
+necessity for taking up arms, say: "_If it were possible_ for men who
+exercise their reason to believe that the Divine Author of our existence
+intended a part of the human race _to hold an absolute property in_, and
+_unbounded power over others_, 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."
+
+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 _increasing_, and _greatly spreading of late_, and
+_many_ who have had slaves, have found themselves so unable to justify
+their own conduct in holding them in bondage, as to be induced to _set
+them at liberty_. May this conviction soon reach every owner of slaves
+in _North America!_ Slavery is, _in every instance_, wrong, unrighteous,
+and oppressive--a very great and crying sin--_there being nothing of the
+kind equal to it on the face of the earth._"
+
+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." _Once_, these were words
+of power; _now_, "a rhetorical flourish."
+
+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."
+
+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, _that men are by nature free_; as accountable
+to him that made them, they must be so; and so long as we have any idea
+of divine _justice_, we must associate that of _human freedom_. Whether
+men can part with their liberty, is among the questions which have
+exercised the ablest writers; but it is _conceded on all hands, that the
+right to be free_ CAN NEVER BE ALIENATED--still less is it practicable
+for one generation to mortgage the privileges of another."
+
+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.
+
+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, _the way I hope preparing under the auspices of heaven_, 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."
+
+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, _the bulk of the people will approve of your pamphlet in
+theory_, and it will find a respectable minority ready to _adopt it in
+practice_--a minority which, for weight and worth of character,
+_preponderates against the greater number_." 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
+_great deal of good_; 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 _whose sentiments on the subject of slavery are
+unequivocal_. 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 _its influence on the future decision of this important
+question would be great, perhaps decisive_. Thus, you see, that so far
+from thinking you have cause to repent of what you have done, _I wish
+you to do more, and wish it on an assurance of its
+effect_."--Jefferson's Posthumous Works, vol. 1, p. 268.
+
+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:
+
+"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.
+
+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.
+
+In the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated a slave
+in 1784, is the following passage:
+
+"Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and cannot,
+without injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery."
+
+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 _ought to do it_."
+
+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:
+
+"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 _lately_ established, it has now
+become _generally extensive_ through this state, and, we fully believe,
+_embraces, on this subject, the sentiments of a large majority of its
+citizens_."
+
+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 _Virginia Society_,
+for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, &c." The following is an
+extract:
+
+"Your memorialists, fully believing that 'righteousness exalteth a
+nation,' and that slavery is not only an odious degradation, but an
+_outrageous violation of one of the most essential rights of human
+nature, and utterly repugnant to the precepts of the gospel_, 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."
+
+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:
+
+"It is our boast, that we live under a government founded on principles
+of justice and reason, wherein _life, liberty_, and the _pursuit of
+happiness_, 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 _abhor that inconsistent, illiberal, and
+interested policy, which withholds those rights, from an unfortunate and
+degraded class of our fellow creatures_."
+
+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.
+
+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 _more than forty days had been spent in adjusting
+the question of slavery, gave it his approval._ The act passed with only
+one dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of New-York,) _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_.
+
+In the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, afterward
+a Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, "_When the entire
+abolition of slavery takes place_, 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 _bring forward
+manumission."_ 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 _the gradual abolition of slavery,_ and the
+_emancipation of the slaves_ 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 _banishing slavery out of this country_. 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 _slaves will never be introduced_ among them. It
+presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will
+be acknowledged and established _throughout the Union_. Yet the lapse of
+a few years, and Congress will have power to _exterminate slavery_
+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 _diabolical_ 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, _unless they agree to a discontinuance of this
+disgraceful trade._" 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 _has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it
+will come round._"--[_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 _detested._ 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
+_it has received a mortal wound_, and will die of consumption."--[_Deb.
+Mass. Con._ p. 60.] General Heath said that, "Slavery was confined to
+the States _now existing, it could not be extended_. By their ordinance,
+Congress had declared that the new States should be republican States,
+and _have no slavery._"--p. 147.
+
+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 _with all the
+readiness the importance of its object demands_; and I cannot help
+expressing the pleasure I feel in finding _so considerable a part_ of
+the community attending to matters of such a momentous concern to the
+_future prosperity_ and happiness of the people of America. I think it
+my duty, as a citizen of the Union, _to espouse their cause_."
+
+Mr. Page, of Virginia, (afterward Governor)--"Was _in favor_ 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 _not_ 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, _from which
+was expected great good would result to_ EVERY CLASS _of citizens_, 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 _wait the decision patiently_."
+
+Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania: "I cannot, for my part, conceive how any
+person _can be said to acquire a property in another_; 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. _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_."
+
+Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, "He _saw the disposition of the
+House_, and he feared it would be referred to a committee, maugre all
+their opposition."
+
+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, _would, from motives of
+humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general emancipation_;
+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."
+
+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 _restore to human nature its inherent privileges_, and if possible,
+wipe off the stigma, which America labored under. The inconsistency in
+our principles, with which we are justly charged _should be done away_,
+that we may show by our actions the pure beneficence of the doctrine we
+held out to the world in our Declaration of Independence."
+
+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? _When this practice comes to
+be tried, then the sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it
+grateful to the ravished ear_."
+
+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 _give some testimony of the
+sense of America_, 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, _to vary
+the practice_ obtaining under some of the state governments, it is this.
+But it is _certain_ a majority of the states are _opposed to this
+practice_."--[Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.]
+
+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 _slaveholder_, says, "I have seen in the papers accounts of
+_large associations_, and applications to Government for _the abolition
+of slavery_. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free
+people, are the _noble principles which dictate those measures_.  SUCH
+MOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW."
+
+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 _free discussion_ 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 _licensed robbers_, and not the just proprietors of what they
+claim. Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but _restoring it
+to the right owner_. 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 _has made open war upon him_, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT
+ON in unremitted efforts. Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is
+indebted to his master, and _bound to serve him_? 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."
+
+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, _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_."
+
+In 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its
+"Scripture proofs," notes, comments, &c. Among these was the following:
+
+
+    "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 _sinners
+    of the first rank_. The word he uses, in its original import
+    comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human
+    race into slavery, or in _retaining_ them in it. _Stealers of
+    men_ are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and _keep_,
+    sell, or buy them."
+
+
+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."
+
+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 _an equal
+standing, in point of privileges, with the whites_! They must enjoy all
+the rights belonging to human nature."
+
+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 _will be effected_ in time; it ought to
+be a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not
+_precipitate_ it to the great injury of the southern States." Mr.
+Hartley, of Pennsylvania said, in the sane debate, "_He was not a little
+surprised to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house._"
+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 _nothing is more
+certain_ than that they _must have_, 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 "_The progress of
+emancipation was astonishing_, the State became crowded with a free
+black population."
+
+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, _no master in the state has a
+right to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour_. 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."
+
+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 _is not far distant_
+when our sister states, in imitation of our example, _shall turn their
+vassals into freemen._" 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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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, _a provision had not been made for the gradual abolition of
+slavery_."--p. 233, 4.
+
+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, _to embrace
+the first moment_ 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?"
+
+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, _a plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves of this
+commonwealth_."
+
+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, _and for many years after, the abolition of
+slavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen_, 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, _was for a simple abolition, considering the objection to color
+as founded in prejudice_. By degrees, all projects of the kind were
+abandoned. Mr. Jefferson _retained_ his opinion, and now we have these
+projects revived."
+
+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
+_changed her policy_ in reference to slavery? That the sentiments _of
+our most distinguished men_, for thirty years _entirely corresponded_
+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 _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 _this measure_, (abolition of
+slavery in the N.W. territory) has eventuated in effects which speak a
+monitory lesson. _How is the representation from this quarter on the
+present question?_"
+
+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 _for the bondage of
+others_, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, we
+_contemplate an emancipation of the slaves of this country_, as
+honorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us."
+
+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 _national sentiment_ 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 _part_ 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.
+
+These witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit--nor their
+testimony comments to make it intelligible--their _names_ are their
+_endorsers_ and their strong words their own interpreters. We wave all
+comments. Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to _hear_, 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."
+
+Some of the points established by the testimony are--The universal
+expectation that the _moral_ 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 _approval_ with all parties, and when
+finally passed, received the vote _of every member of Congress from each
+of the slaveholding states_. The south also had every reason for
+believing that the first Congress under the constitution would _ratify_
+that ordinance--as it _did_ unanimously.
+
+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 _with their_ 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, _rights_ no longer--free speech
+struck dumb--free _men_ 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!
+
+The spirit and power of our fathers, where are they? Their deep homage
+always and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with its _inseparable
+signs--free speech and a free press_--their reverence for justice,
+liberty, _rights_ and all-pervading law, where are they?
+
+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.
+
+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 _not_.
+If they _were_, 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" _also_, and of course a
+_constitutional_ act; but if the legislative acts "depriving" them of
+"liberty" were _not_ "due process of law," then the slaves were deprived
+of liberty _unconstitutionally_, and these acts are _void_. In that case
+the _constitution emancipates them_.
+
+If the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase "due
+process of law," is _judicial_ process solely, it is granted, and that
+fact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District _has_ 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 _unconstitutionally_,
+and is therefore _free by the constitution_. This is asserted only of
+the slaves under the "exclusive legislation" of Congress.
+
+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 _this_, provided it will do something _else_, that is,
+_pay_ for them. Thus, instead of denying _the power_, the objector not
+only admits, but _affirms_ it, as the ground of the inference that
+compensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence of
+_one_ power, the objector asserts the existence of _two_--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.
+
+If Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private
+property, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally,
+_legalize_ the perpetration of such acts, by _others_, nor _protect_
+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
+_product_ than the producer?--to the _interest_, than the owner of the
+_principal_?--to the hands and arms, than he from whose shoulders they
+swing?--to the body and soul, than he whose they _are_? Congress not
+only impairs but annihilates the right of private property, while it
+withholds from the slaves of the District their title to _themselves_.
+What! Congress powerless to protect a man's right to _himself_, when it
+can make inviolable the right to a _dog_? 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 "_take_?" Nothing. What would it _hold_? Nothing. What
+would it put to "public use?" Nothing. Instead of _taking_ "private
+property," Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say "private property
+shall not _be_ 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 _paramount_, he shall be protected in it." True, Congress
+may not arbitrarily take property, _as_ 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 _condition_ of the slave--makes him his own
+_proprietor_ instead of the property of another. It determines a
+question of _original right_ 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.
+
+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 _intent_. The _design_ of the provision,
+was to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right
+to "take property" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to
+adjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his
+own secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of
+legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the
+District, it would be _adopting_, 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 _condition_ 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.
+
+Finally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of
+"_property_." The constitution of the United States does not recognise
+slaves as "PROPERTY" any where, and it does not recognise them in _any
+sense_ in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in the
+constitution recognise them as "persons." Every reference to them points
+_solely_ to the element of _personality_; and thus, by the strongest
+implication, declares that the constitution _knows_ them only as
+"persons," and _will_ 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
+_personality_--a refusal to recognise them as chattels--"persons _held_
+to service." Are _oxen "held_ to service?" That can be affirmed only of
+_persons_. 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 recognized as "persons" by the exaction of their _allegiance_
+to the government. For offences against the government slaves are tried
+as _persons_; as persons they are entitled to counsel for their defence,
+to the rules of evidence, and to "due process of the law," and as
+_persons_ 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
+_persons_. 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 _property_ 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 _personality_. In the invariable
+recognition of slaves as _persons_, 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 _human_ 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 _men_, that they might be shorn both of liberty and
+humanity.
+
+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 _does not consider
+these persons_, (slaves,) _as a species of property_."--[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 _state_ laws, or from the law 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, _can be held as a
+slave_.
+
+Men can hold _property_ 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 _slaves_ 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," _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_.
+
+Finally, in the clause under consideration, "private property" is not to
+be taken "without _just_ compensation." "JUST!" If justice is to be
+appealed to in determining the amount of compensation, let her determine
+the _grounds_ also. If it be her province to say _how much_ compensation
+is "just," it is hers to say whether _any_ is "just,"--whether the slave
+is "just" property _at all_, rather than a "_person_." Then, if justice
+adjudges the slave to be "private property," it adjudges him to be _his
+own_ property, since the right to one's _self_ 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 _equivalent_ for one's
+self--the least that can be done is to restore to him his original
+private property.
+
+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 _setting up_ of such a claim.
+
+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 _absolute_ 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 _is in every sense absolute_.
+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.
+
+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 _no power_ to do that for which it was made the
+_depository of power_? CANNOT the United States Government fulfil the
+purpose _for which it was brought into being_?
+
+To abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; but
+to "_establish justice_" between two parties. To emancipate the slave,
+is to "_establish justice_" between him and his master--to throw around
+the person, character, conscience, liberty, and domestic relations of
+the one, _the same law_ that secures and blesses the other. In other
+words, to prevent by _legal restraints_ 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
+_enact_ that innocence and helplessness--now _free plunder_--are
+entitled to _legal protection_; and that power, avarice, and lust, shall
+no longer gorge upon their spoils under the license, and by the
+ministrations of _law_! Congress, by possessing "exclusive legislation
+in all cases whatsoever," has a _general protective power_ for ALL the
+inhabitants of the District. If it has no power to protect _one_ man, it
+has none to protect another--none to protect _any_--and if it _can_
+protect _one_ man and is _bound_ to protect him, it _can_ protect
+_every_ man--all men--and is _bound_ 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
+"_case_" 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 _one_
+class against the other, it gives power to protect _either_ 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 _general_ power in
+the clause so often cited, and an _express_ one in that cited
+above--"Congress shall have power, to suppress insurrections." So much
+for a _supposed_ case. Here follows a _real_ one. The whites in the
+District are _perpetrating these identical acts_ 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 _all_ cases
+whatsoever." For the grant of power to suppress insurrections, is an
+_unconditional_ 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 _actual_ insurrection, from the same
+source whence it derived its power to suppress the _same_ acts in the
+case _supposed_. If one case is an insurrection, the other is. The
+_acts_ in both are the same; the _actors_ 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
+_rights_, 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 _whole lives_ 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 _at all_, it
+has power to suppress them _in_ all.
+
+It has been shown already that _allegiance_ is exacted of the slave. Is
+the government of the United States unable to grant _protection_ where
+it exacts _allegiance_? 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? _Protection is the_ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT _of every human
+being under the exclusive legislation of Congress who has not forfeited
+it by crime_.
+
+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
+_not entitled to compensation_. 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 _property and persons_, it surely might stop half-way, destroy
+them as _property_ while it legalized their existence as _persons_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _as_ property when public safety requires it,
+especially if it transform into a _protection_ and _defence_ that which
+as _property_ 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 _seven thousand slaves_. 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, _transforms them
+into enemies_;" and Richard Henry Lee, in the Va. House of Burgesses in
+1758, declared that to those who held them, "_slaves must be natural
+enemies._" Is Congress so _impotent_ that it _cannot_ 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 _necessity_ 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 _cannot_ arrest the process that _made_ them
+"enemies," and still goads to deadlier hate by fiery trials, and day by
+day adds others to their number? Is _this_ 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.
+
+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 _friends_ 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 _they_ 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.
+
+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 _weaken_ them, and renders
+them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign
+nations, they will be the means of _inviting_ 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 _internal_ as
+external. _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._" See Cong. Reg. vol. 1, p. 310-11.
+
+
+WYTHE.
+
+
+
+POSTSCRIPT
+
+My apology for adding a _postscript_, 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 _any_ 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 _true
+touchstones_, 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 _no_-faced
+_non-committalism_, 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,--_Remember the Missouri Question, and the fate of those who then
+sold the North, and their own birthright!_
+
+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.
+
+"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."
+
+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 _professedly_ 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.
+
+The passage of this resolution--with the vote of every southern senator,
+forms a new era in the discussion of this question.
+
+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 _true_ ground--that finally when the question was
+taken, every slaveholding senator, including Mr. Calhoun himself, voted
+for the resolution.
+
+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.
+
+The _only_ 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 "_as it still continues in both of them_, it
+could not be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was
+implied in the cession," &c. The _sole argument_ is _not_ that exclusive
+_sovereignty_ has no power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction,
+_nor_ that the powers of even _ordinary legislation_ 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
+_unexpressed expectation_ of one of the parties that the other would not
+"in _all_ cases" use the power which said party had consented _might be
+used "in all cases," prohibits_ the use of it. The only cardinal point
+in the discussion, is here not only _yielded_, 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 _sole
+reason_ 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 "_slavery still continues in those states_,"--thus explicitly
+admitting, that if slavery did _not_ "still continue" in those States,
+Congress _could_ abolish it in the District. The same admission is made
+also in the _premises_, which state that slavery existed in those states
+_at the time of the cession_, &c. Admitting that if it had _not_ existed
+there then, but had grown up in the District under _United States'
+laws_, Congress might constitutionally abolish it. Or that if the ceded
+parts of those states had been the _only_ 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 _requires_ Congress in such
+case to abolish slavery in the District "by the _good faith implied_ 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
+_they_ might think would unfavorably bear upon their interests;
+_themselves_ of course being the judges.
+
+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 _expressed_ in the acts of
+cession--that in their _terms_ 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 _intent_. 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 _act_ 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 _on itself alone!_ Mr. Clay and the other
+senators who voted for the resolution, _guess_ that Maryland and
+Virginia _supposed_ that Congress would by no means _use_ 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
+_assumed expectation_ 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!
+
+But let us survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia
+leave so much to be "_implied_?" 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
+_making known_ their wishes? If, as honorable senators tell us, Maryland
+and Virginia did verily travail with such abounding _faith_, why brought
+they forth no _works_?
+
+It is as true in _legislation_ as in religion, that the only _evidence_
+of "faith" is _works_, and that "faith" _without_ works is _dead_, i.e.
+has no power. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing
+_expressed_, an "implied" _faith_ without works, is _omnipotent_. Mr.
+Clay is lawyer enough to know that even a _senatorial hypothesis_ as to
+_what must have been the understanding_ of Maryland and Virginia about
+congressional exercise of constitutional power, _abrogates no grant_,
+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
+_before their eyes_, and that both of them declared those acts made "in
+_pursuance_" of said clause. Those states were aware that the United
+States in their constitution had left nothing to be "_implied_" 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 _stipulations_. Full well did they know
+also that these were times when, in matters of high import, _nothing_
+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 _acts of
+cession_. The severities of a long and terrible discipline had taught
+them to guard at all points _legislative grants_, that their exact
+import and limit might be self-evident--leaving no scope for a blind
+"faith," that _somehow_ 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 _just enough_ 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."
+
+Further: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their "implied
+faith" in _words_, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a
+proviso, declaring that Congress should not "exercise exclusive
+legislation in _all_ cases whatsoever over the District," but that the
+"case" of _slavery_ 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 _not remote_;"
+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 _tolerated_, though she then contained
+about half the slaves in the Union. Was this the time to stipulate for
+the _perpetuity_ of slavery under the exclusive legislation of Congress?
+and that too at the _same_ session of Congress when _every one_ 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?
+
+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 _speedily_ abolished--are we to be told that these
+states _designed_ to bind Congress _never_ to terminate it? Are we to
+adopt the monstrous conclusion that this was the _intent_ of the Ancient
+Dominion--thus to _bind_ the United States by an "implied faith," and
+that when the United States _accepted_ the cession, she did solemnly
+thus plight her troth, and that Virginia did then so _understand_ it?
+Verily one would think that honorable senators supposed themselves
+deputed to do our _thinking_ as well as our legislation, or rather, that
+they themselves were absolved from such drudgery by virtue of their
+office!
+
+Another absurdity of this dogma about "implied faith" is, that where
+there was no power to exact an _express_ pledge, there was none to
+demand an _implied_ one, and where there was no power to _give_ the one,
+there was none to give the _other_. 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 _breach_ of the Constitution. Further, the Congress which accepted the
+cession was competent to pass a resolution pledging itself not to _use
+all_ the power over the District committed to it by the Constitution.
+But here its power ended. Its resolution would only bind _itself_. Could
+it bind the _next_ 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 _shall_ 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 _themselves_ never to abolish slavery
+within their own territories--the ceded parts included. Where then would
+they get power to bind _another_ 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?
+
+But perhaps we shall be told, that the "implied faith" in the acts of
+cession of Maryland and Virginia was _not_ that Congress should _never_
+abolish slavery in the District, but that it should not do it until
+_they_ 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 _not_
+abolish until _they_ do; and then just as "good faith" that Congress
+_will_ abolish _when_ they do! Excellently accommodated! Did those
+States suppose that Congress would legislate over the national domain,
+the common jurisdiction of _all_, for Maryland and Virginia alone? And
+who, did they suppose, would be judges in the matter?--themselves
+merely? or the whole Union?
+
+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
+"_instructions_" from head quarters--instructions not to be disregarded
+without a violation of that, "good faith implied in the cession," &c.
+
+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 _sounding boards_ called "Senate
+Chamber" and "Representatives' Hall," for the purpose of sending abroad
+"by authority" _national echoes_ of _state_ legislation!--permitted also
+to keep in their pay a corps of pliant _national_ musicians, with
+peremptory instructions to sound on any line of the staff according as
+Virginia and Maryland may give the _sovereign_ key note!
+
+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 _principle_
+pervading both. They proceed virtually upon the hypothesis that the will
+and pleasure of Virginia and Maryland are _paramount_ to those of the
+_Union_. 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 _agent_ to consummate the object, there could
+hardly have been higher assumption or louder vaunting. The sole object
+of _having_ 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 _object_ of a federal district,
+that it was designed to guard and promote the interests of _all_ the
+states, and that it was to be legislated over _for this end_--the
+resolution proceeds upon an hypothesis _totally the reverse_. It takes a
+single point of _state_ policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL interests,
+utterly overshadowing them; abrogating national _rights_; making void a
+clause of the Constitution; humbling the general government into a
+subject--crouching for favors to a superior, and that too _on its own
+exclusive jurisdiction_. All the attributes of sovereignty vested in
+Congress by the Constitution it impales upon the point of an alleged
+_implication_. 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 _its own territory_ 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 _their own benefit_, not for
+that of the District, except as the prosperity of the District is
+involved, and necessary to the _general advantage_."--[Life of Pinkney,
+p.  612.]
+
+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
+_States_ and the _people_," (not of _two_ states, and a mere _fraction_
+of the people.) 2d, "Over a District placed under _their_ control," i.e.
+under the control of the _whole_ of the States, not under the control of
+_two twenty-sixths_ of them. 3d, That it was thus put under their
+control "_for_ THEIR OWN _benefit_," the benefit of _all_ the States
+_equally_; not to secure special benefits to Maryland and Virginia, (or
+what it might be _conjectured_ 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 _District_,"
+except as that is _connected_ with, and _a means of promoting_ the
+_general_ advantage. If this is the case with the _District_, which is
+_directly_ concerned, it is pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia,
+who are but _indirectly_ 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 "_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_." Cong.
+Reg. vol. 1. p. 310, 11.
+
+But these are only the initiatory absurdities of this "good faith
+_implied_." 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
+_equally_ a violation for Congress to do it _with the consent_, 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 _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'_, &c.
+
+But let us see where this principle of the _thirty-six_ will lead us. If
+"implied faith" to Maryland and Virginia _restrains_ Congress from the
+abolition of slavery in the District, it _requires_ Congress to do in
+the District what those states have done within their bounds, i.e.,
+restrain _others_ from abolishing it. Upon the same principle Congress
+is _bound_, by the doctrine of Mr. Clay's resolution, to _prohibit
+emancipation_ within the District. There is no _stopping place_ for this
+plighted "faith." Congress must not only refrain from laying violent
+hands on slavery, _itself_, 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!
+
+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 _as_ it exists in those
+states. If to abolish _every_ form of slavery in the District would
+violate good faith, to abolish _the_ 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 _slavery_, but
+with the _Maryland and Virginia systems_ of slavery. The faith of those
+states not being in the preservation of _a_ system, but of _their_
+system; otherwise Congress, instead of _sustaining_, 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 _real
+estate_, 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 _until_
+Virginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any _part_ of it that
+exists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any _form_ or _appendage_ of
+it still existing in those states. 4th. _To abolish_ when they do. 5th.
+To increase or abate its rigor _when, how_, and _as_ 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.
+
+But here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states should
+steer different courses--then there would be _two_ wakes! Can Congress
+float in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! Its
+obsequiousness equals its "power of legislation in _all_ cases
+whatsoever." It can float _up_ 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 _at once_, 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 _man_ can serve two
+masters--but if "corporations have _no_ souls," analogy would absolve
+Congress on that score, or at most give it only _a very small soul_--not
+large enough to be at all in the way, as an _exception_ to the universal
+rule laid down to the maxim!
+
+In following out the absurdities of this "_implied_ good faith," it will
+be seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to
+_all the subjects_ of _legislation_ 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 _immorality_, 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,
+_unless Virginia and Maryland took the lead_, would violate the "good
+faith implied in the cession," &c.
+
+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 _possessions_ and _titles_
+confirmed to them, and be _protected_ in the enjoyment of their _rights_
+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 _held
+slaves_. Three years after the cession, the Virginia delegation in
+Congress _proposed_ 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?
+
+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
+_first_ 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.
+
+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!
+
+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 _intent_, 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!
+
+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, _will not_, 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.
+
+Have the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the
+lessons of experience? If lost to _reason_, are they dead to _instinct_
+also? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self preservation? And
+shall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal sacrifice?
+
+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.
+
+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 _amended_ form. It will
+be seen however, that it underwent no material modification.
+
+"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."
+
+The vote upon the Resolution stood as follows:
+
+_Yeas_.--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.
+
+_Nays_.--Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, PRENTISS, RUGGLES,
+SMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE
+
+
+ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER
+
+No. 5
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+THE
+
+
+POWER OF CONGRESS
+
+
+OVER THE
+
+
+DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, UNDER THE SIGNATURE
+OF "WYTHE."
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+WITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+NEW-YORK:
+
+PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY
+
+NO. 143 NASSAU-STREET.
+
+1838.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+This periodical contains 3-1/2 sheets--Postage under 100 miles, 6 cts.,
+over 100, 10 cts.
+
+
+
+POWER OF CONGRESS
+
+OVER THE
+
+DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
+
+A civilized community presupposes a government of law. If that
+government be a republic, its citizens are the sole _sources_, as well
+as the _subjects_ 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, _in all cases whatsoever_, over
+such District." Congress may make laws for the District "in all
+_cases_," not of all _kinds_; not all _laws_ whatsoever, but laws "in
+all _cases_ whatsoever." The grant respects the _subjects_ of
+legislation, _not_ the moral nature of the laws. The law-making power
+every where is subject to _moral_ 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.
+
+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 _any where_. The exact
+import, therefore, of the clause "in all cases whatsoever," is, _on all
+subjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation_. 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.
+
+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 _single_ case only, why did they
+provide for "_all_ cases whatsoever?" Besides, this clause was opposed
+in many of the state conventions, because the grant of power was not
+restricted to police regulations _alone_. 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 _police_ 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
+_unlimited, unbounded authority?_" 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 _generally_, 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. [_Deb. Va. Con._, p. 320.]
+In the forty-third number of the "Federalist," Mr. Madison says: "The
+indispensable necessity of _complete_ authority at the seat of
+government, carries its own evidence with it."
+
+Finally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to
+the obvious import of its _terms_, 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 _police and good government_ of said District,"
+_which amendment was rejected._
+
+The former part of the clause under consideration, "Congress shall have
+power to exercise _exclusive_ legislation," gives _sole_ jurisdiction,
+and the latter part, "in all cases whatsoever," defines the _extent_ of
+it. Since, then, Congress is the _sole_ 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 _any_ where, Congress is competent to do in the District
+of Columbia. Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to state and
+argue the _real question_ at issue.
+
+
+
+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?
+
+In every government, absolute sovereignty exists _somewhere_. In the
+United States it exists primarily with the _people_, and _ultimate_
+sovereignty _always_ exists with them. In each of the States, the
+legislature possesses a _representative_ 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
+_people_ 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
+_the people_ 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 _the people_, clothed with all their functions, and as such
+competent, _during the continuance of the grant_, 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 _somewhere_--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."
+
+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
+_sovereignty_ 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 _it alone_. Maryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution
+_before_ 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,
+
+2. FROM THE FACT, THAT SLAVERY, AS A LEGAL SYSTEM, IS THE CREATURE OF
+LEGISLATION. The law, by _creating_ slavery, not only affirmed its
+_existence_ to be within the sphere and under the control of
+legislation, but equally, the _conditions_ and _terms_ of its existence,
+and the _question_ whether or not it _should_ exist. Of course
+legislation would not travel _out_ of its sphere, in abolishing what is
+_within_ 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 _yourself_." 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?
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+The law of North Carolina prohibits the "immoderate" correction of
+slaves. If it has power to prohibit immoderate correction, it can
+prohibit _moderate_ correction--_all_ 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.
+
+The Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power to make
+laws "to oblige the owners of slaves to _treat them with humanity_." 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 _humane_ treatment of the slaves. This grant to
+those legislatures, empowers them to decide what _is_ and what is _not_
+"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 _particulars_
+of such treatment--gives power to exact it in _all respects--requiring_
+certain acts, and _prohibiting_ 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 "_humane_ 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 _oblige_" masters to practise "humane treatment"--they have
+the power to _prohibit such_ treatment, and are bound to do it.
+
+The law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the holder,
+if he be also a _land_ holder, to separate them from the soil.[A] If it
+has power to prohibit the sale _without_ the soil, it can prohibit the
+sale _with_ it; and if it can prohibit the _sale_ as property, it can
+prohibit the _holding_ as property. Similar laws exist in the French,
+Spanish, and Portuguese colonies.
+
+[Footnote A: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law passed in 1705.
+(_Beverly's Hist. of Va_., 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.]
+
+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 _one_ thing, it can oblige him to give him another: if food and
+clothing, then wages, liberty, his own body.
+
+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, ["_Reeve's Law of
+Baron and Femme_," p. 340-1.] Each of the laws enumerated above, does,
+_in principle_, abolish slavery; and all of them together abolish it in
+fact. True, not as a _whole_, and at a _stroke_, nor all in one place;
+but in its _parts_, by piecemeal, at divers times and places; thus
+showing that the abolition of slavery is within the boundary of
+legislation.
+
+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 _Constitutions_, 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 _cannot_ 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 _never had_, and what _cannot_ pertain to it! The legislatures
+of those States have no power to abolish slavery, simply because their
+Constitutions have expressly _taken away_ 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 _restrict_ it.
+
+The slaveholding States have recognised this power in their _laws_. 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 _free_." By a law of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792,
+a slave brought into the state and kept _there a year_, was _free_. The
+Maryland Court of Appeals at the December term 1813 [case of Stewart
+_vs._ 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 _free_, being _emancipated_ 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 _with the exception of the sixth article which prohibits
+slavery_; 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.)
+
+Slaveholding states have asserted this power _in their judicial
+decisions_. 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 _vs._ Coquillon, 14 Martin's La.
+Reps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter
+_vs._ 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 _vs._ Hopper, Washington's Circuit Court Reps. 508. This
+principle was also decided by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky; case of
+Rankin _vs._ Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407; see also, Wilson _vs._
+Isbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts _vs._ Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps.
+566. The State _vs._ Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise
+_vs._ 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.
+
+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 _legislative_ 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 _legislative_
+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 _law_." In a letter to Sir
+John Sinclair, he says: "There are in Pennsylvania, _laws_ for the
+gradual abolition of slavery, which neither Maryland nor Virginia have
+at present, but which nothing is more certain than that they _must
+have_, 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 _it must bear and adopt it_."--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 _name_ is his biography.
+
+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 _abolished_ 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
+_abolish_ 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 _law_.
+
+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."
+
+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
+_extermination_ from amongst us of slavery, is a work worthy the
+representatives of a polished and enlightened nation."
+
+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.
+
+
+    "The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on
+    the subject of Abolition, was in these words: _Resolved_, 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 _was_ expedient, _now_ 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 _negatived_, 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."
+
+
+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.
+
+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
+_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 _abridge_
+the powers which Congress possessed under the articles of confederation?
+
+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 _technic_, in common
+parlance, that the fact of its being _proper slavery_ is overlooked. The
+buying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of the middle
+passage, were mere _incidents_ 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 _all_ the slavery within its
+jurisdiction, but it did abolish all the slavery in _one_ part of its
+jurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to abolish slavery in
+_another_ part of its jurisdiction, especially in that part where it has
+"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?"
+
+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 _unconditionally_, 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 _laws_ of the free states. If these
+laws had _no power_ to emancipate, why this constitutional guard to
+prevent it?
+
+The insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists
+that framed the Constitution, to the existence of the _power_, 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 _universal law_,
+and is recognised and protected by all civilized nations; property in
+slaves is, by general consent, an _exception_; hence slaveholders
+insisted upon the insertion of this clause in the United States
+Constitution, that they might secure by an _express provision_, that
+from which protection is withheld, by the acknowledged principles of
+universal law.[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 "_persons_, and _held_ to service."
+
+[Footnote 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 _now_ 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 "_for one moment_," under the laws
+of France emancipated an American slave--the case of Fulton _vs._.
+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 "_property_," and that
+whenever held as property under _law_, it is only by _positive
+legislative acts_, 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.]
+
+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 _statute_ 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 _things_, as contra-distinguished
+from _persons_." 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 _fundamental_
+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 _devotion to_ 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 "_justice_"
+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.
+
+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
+_principles themselves_, 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 _vs._
+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." [_Hall's
+Law Journal, new series._] Mr. Duponceau, in his "Dissertation on the
+Jurisdiction of Courts in the United States," says, "I consider the
+common law of England the _jus commune_ 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 _vs._
+Reed, in 1823, Hawkes' N.C. Reps. 454, says, "a law of _paramount
+obligation to the statute_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+We argue it further, from the fact, that slavery exists there _now_ 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.
+
+Is Congress so impotent in its own "exclusive jurisdiction" that it
+_cannot_ "otherwise by law provide?" If it can say, what _shall_ be
+considered property, it can say what shall _not_ 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 _bona
+fide_ 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?
+
+
+
+II. THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN,
+TILL RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED.
+
+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 _inexpediency_ alone. In the debate which preceded the
+vote, the _power_ 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
+_putting a stop to the same_."
+
+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
+_expediency_ of providing by _law_ 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.
+
+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, (_slavery_,) as upon all other subjects of
+legislation, to exercise _unlimited discretion_." 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
+_unconstitutional_ 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."
+
+"Resolved, That Congress _ought not to interfere_ 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."
+
+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.
+
+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 _legislative_ 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 _excluding them when free_. Journal H.R.
+1828-9, p. 174.
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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 _implied_ 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
+_implication_. 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.
+Here is a full concession of the _power_. 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."
+
+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 _as it is_. 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.
+
+The Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the _general_
+power of Congress over the subject of slavery, do virtually assert its
+_special_ power within its _exclusive_ jurisdiction.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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" _District_. 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 _here_? Within the ten miles square, you
+have _undoubted power_ to exercise exclusive legislation. _Produce a
+bill to emancipate the slaves in the District of Columbia_, or, if you
+prefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter."
+
+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?"
+
+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] 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
+_special_ and _comprehensive_ legislation which these circumstances
+peculiarly demanded."
+
+[Footnote 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 _every constitutional barrier should be
+interposed to prevent its further extension_: and that the constitution
+of the United States _clearly gives congress the right_ to require new
+states, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States,
+to _make the prohibition of slavery_ a condition of their admission into
+the Union: Therefore,
+
+"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 _the prohibition of
+slavery_ therein an indispensable condition of admission." ]
+
+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.
+
+An explicit declaration, that an "_overwhelming majority_" of the
+_present_ 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:
+
+
+    "The time has arrived when we must have new guaranties under the
+    constitution, or the Union must be dissolved. _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_, NOT WITHOUT STRONG
+    REASONS, _that the power of Congress extends to all of these
+    subjects_."
+
+
+_Direct testimony_ to show that the power of Congress to abolish slavery
+in the District, has always till recently been _universally conceded_,
+is perhaps quite superfluous. We subjoin, however, the following:
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+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."
+
+
+
+OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED.
+
+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 _accept_ 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.
+
+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."
+
+"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.
+
+The cession of Virginia was made on the 3d of December, 1788, in the
+following words:
+
+"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."
+
+But were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act had _none_.
+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
+_therein_, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such
+individuals to the United States."
+
+This specification touching the soil was merely definitive and
+explanatory of that clause in the act of cession, "_full and absolute
+right_." Instead of restraining the power of Congress on _slavery_ and
+other subjects, it even gives it freer course; for exceptions to _parts_
+of a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the
+exceptions. If it was the _design_ of the proviso to restrict
+congressional action on the subject of _slavery_, why is the _soil
+alone_ 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 _meant_, though nothing was _said_ about it?
+
+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 _restricting_ that clause, both States
+_confirm_ it. Now, their acts of cession either accorded with that
+clause of the constitution, or they conflicted with it. If they
+conflicted with it, _accepting_ the cessions was a violation of the
+constitution. The fact that Congress accepted the cessions, proves that
+in its view their _terms_ 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!
+
+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.
+
+This comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They _knew_ 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 _adopted_ the constitution. And _afterward_, 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
+_supposed_!" &c. Cede it they _did_, 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, _the amount of power over the
+District, lodged in Congress by the constitution_. 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 _not_--and that point is to be settled, not
+by state "suppositions," nor state usages, nor state legislation, but
+_by the terms of the clause themselves_.
+
+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 _declaimers_ 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
+_sovereignty_ mere creatures of _contingency_? Is delegated _authority_
+mere conditional _permission_? Is a _constitutional power_ to be
+exercised by those who hold it, only by popular _sufferance?_ 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
+_whole_ people must be had--not that of a majority, however large.
+Majorities, to be authoritative, must be _legal_--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 _every one_ is necessary--and _universal_
+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 _to use_ a power which
+it _has not_? "It is required of a man according to what he _hath_,"
+saith the Scripture. I commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would
+that he had got his _logic_ 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, _asking_ Congress to do what it _cannot_ do,
+gives it the power--to pray the exercise of a power that is _not,
+creates_ it. A beautiful theory! Let us work it both ways. If to
+petition for the exercise of a power that is _not_, creates it--to
+petition against the exercise of a power that _is_, 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 _right_ to abolish slavery, they impose
+the _duty_; if they confer constitutional _authority_, they create
+constitutional _obligation_. If Congress _may_ abolish because of an
+expression of their will, it _must_ abolish at the bidding of that will.
+If the people of the District are a _source of power_ to Congress, their
+_expressed_ 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 _subject_ 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.
+
+"_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 _withheld_ 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 _guessing_
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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?"
+
+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
+_when slavery should cease_, 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.)
+
+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 _general belief_ 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.
+
+The first _general_ 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.
+
+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. _Anthony Benezet stood alone a few years ago
+in opposing negro slavery in Philadelphia_, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS OF THE
+PROVINCE AS WELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST IT."--[Stuart's Life of
+Sharpe, p. 21.]
+
+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, _should be willing to extend personal
+liberty to others_, therefore," &c.
+
+October 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: "We,
+for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we
+represent, _firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue,
+honor, and love of our country_, as follows:
+
+"2d Article. We _will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported_
+after the first day of December next, after which time we will _wholly
+discontinue_ 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."
+
+The Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and the
+necessity for taking up arms, say: "_If it were possible_ for men who
+exercise their reason to believe that the divine Author of our existence
+intended a part of the human race to _hold an absolute property in, and
+unbounded power over others_," &c.
+
+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 _increasing_, and _greatly spreading of late_, and _many_ who have
+had slaves, have found themselves so unable to justify their own conduct
+in holding them in bondage, as to be induced to _set them at liberty_. *
+*     *     *     Slavery is, _in every instance_, wrong, unrighteous,
+and oppressive--a very great and crying sin--_there being nothing of the
+kind equal to it on the face of the earth._"
+
+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." _Once_, these were words
+of power; _now_, "a rhetorical flourish."
+
+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."
+
+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, _that men are by nature free_; and so long as
+we have any idea of divine _justice_, we must associate that of _human
+freedom_. It is _conceded on all hands, that the right to be free_ CAN
+NEVER BE ALIENATED."
+
+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.
+
+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, _the way I hope preparing under the auspices of heaven_, FOR
+A TOTAL EMANCIPATION."
+
+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, _the bulk of the people will approve of your pamphlet in
+theory_, and it will find a respectable minority ready to _adopt it in
+practice_--a minority which, for weight and worth of character,
+_preponderates against the greater number_." 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 _great deal of good_; 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 _whose
+sentiments on the subject of slavery are unequivocal._ 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 _its influence on the
+future decision of this important question would be great, perhaps
+decisive._ Thus, you see, that so far from thinking you have cause to
+repent of what you have done, _I wish you to do more, and wish it on an
+assurance of its effect._"--Jefferson's Posthumous Works, vol. 1, p.
+268.
+
+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.
+
+In the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated a slave
+in 1784, is the following passage:
+
+"Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and cannot,
+without injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery."
+
+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 _ought to do it._"
+
+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:
+
+
+    "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
+    _lately_ established, it has now become _generally extensive_
+    through this state, and, we fully believe, _embraces, on this
+    subject, the sentiments of a large majority of its citizens._"
+
+
+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 _Virginia Society_,
+for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, &c." The following is an
+extract:
+
+
+    "Your memorialists, fully believing that slavery is not only an
+    odious degradation, but an _outrageous violation of one of the
+    most essential rights of human nature, and utterly repugnant to
+    the precepts of the gospel_, 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."
+
+
+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:
+
+
+    "It is our boast, that we live under a government wherein
+    _life_, _liberty_, and the _pursuit of happiness_, 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 _abhor that inconsistent,
+    illiberal, and interested policy, which withholds those rights
+    from an unfortunate and degraded class of our fellow
+    creatures._"
+
+
+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.
+
+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 _more than forty days had been spent in
+adjusting the question of slavery, gave it his approval._ The act passed
+with only one dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of New York,) _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_.
+
+In the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, afterward
+a Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, "_When the entire
+abolition of slavery takes place_, 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 bring forward
+manumission_." 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 _the gradual abolition of slavery_, and the
+_emancipation of the slaves_ 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 _banishing slavery out of this country_. 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 _slaves will never be introduced_ among them. It
+presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will
+be acknowledged and established _throughout the Union_. Yet the lapse of
+a few years, and Congress will have power to _exterminate slavery_
+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 _diabolical_ 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, _unless they agree to a discontinuance of this
+disgraceful trade_." 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 _has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it
+will come round_."--[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 _detested_. 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
+_it has received a mortal wound_, and will die of consumption."--[Deb.
+Mass. Con. p. 60.] General Heath said that, "Slavery was confined to the
+States _now existing_, it _could not be extended_. By their ordinance,
+Congress had declared that the new States should be republican States,
+_and have no slavery_."--p. 147.
+
+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 _so considerable a part_ of the community
+attending to matters of such a momentous concern to the _future
+prosperity_ and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty,
+as a citizen of the Union, _to espouse their cause_."
+
+Mr. Page, of Virginia, (afterward Governor)--"Was _in favor_ 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 _not_ 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, _from which
+was expected great good would result to_ EVERY CLASS _of citizens_, 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 _wait the decision patiently_."
+
+Mr. Scott of Pennsylvania: "I cannot, for my part, conceive how any
+person _can be said to acquire a property in another_. Let us argue on
+principles countenanced by reason, and becoming humanity. _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_."
+
+Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, "He _saw the disposition of the
+House_, and he feared it would he referred to a committee, maugre all
+their opposition."
+
+Mr. Smith of South Carolina, said, "That on entering into this
+government, they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that the other
+states,  *     *     _would, from motives of humanity and benevolence,
+be led to vote for a general emancipation_."
+
+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 restore to human nature its inherent privileges_. The inconsistency
+in our principles, with which we are justly charged _should be done
+away_."
+
+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? _When this practice comes to be tried, then the
+sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it grateful to the
+ravished ear_."
+
+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 _give some testimony of the sense of America_, 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, _to vary the practice_ obtaining under some of the
+state governments, it is this. But it is _certain_ a majority of the
+states are _opposed to this practice_."--Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.
+
+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 _slaveholder_, says, "I have seen in the papers accounts of
+_large associations_, and applications to Government for _the abolition
+of slavery_. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free
+people, are the _noble principles which dictate those measures_. SUCH
+MOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW."
+
+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 _free discussion_ 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 _licensed robbers_, and not the just proprietors of what they
+claim. Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but _restoring it
+to the right owner_. 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 _has made open war upon him_, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT
+ON in unremitted efforts. Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is
+indebted to his master, and _bound to serve him_? 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."
+
+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, _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_."
+
+In 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its
+"Scripture proofs," notes, comments, &c. Among these was the following:
+
+
+    "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 _sinners
+    of the first rank_. The word he uses, in its original import
+    comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human
+    race into slavery, or in _retaining_ them in it. _Stealers of
+    men_ are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and _keep_,
+    sell, or buy them."
+
+
+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."
+
+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 _an equal
+standing, in point of privileges, with the whites_! They must enjoy all
+the rights belonging to human nature."
+
+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 _will be effected_ in time; it ought to
+be a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not
+_precipitate_ it to the great injury of the southern States." Mr.
+Hartley, of Pennsylvania, said, in the same debate, "_He was not a
+little surprised to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house._"
+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 _nothing is more
+certain_ than that they _must have_, 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 "_The progress of
+emancipation was astonishing_, the State became crowded with a free
+black population."
+
+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, _no master in the state has a
+right to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour_.... 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."
+
+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 _is not far distant_ when
+our sister states, in imitation of our example, _shall turn their
+vassals into freemen_." 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.
+
+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."
+
+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.
+
+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, _a provision had not been made for the gradual abolition of
+slavery_."--p. 233, 4.
+
+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, _to embrace
+the first moment_ 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?"
+
+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, _a plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves of this
+commonwealth_."
+
+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, _and for many years after, the abolition of
+slavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen_, 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, _was for a simple abolition, considering the objection to color
+as founded in prejudice_. By degrees, all projects of the kind were
+abandoned. Mr. Jefferson _retained_ his opinion, and now we have these
+projects revived."
+
+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
+_changed her policy_ in reference to slavery? That the sentiments of
+_our most distinguished men_, for thirty years _entirely corresponded_
+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 _this measure_,
+(abolition of slavery in the N.W. territory) has eventuated in effects
+which speak a monitory lesson. _How is the representation from this
+quarter on the present question?_"
+
+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 _for the bondage of
+others_, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, we
+_contemplate an emancipation of the slaves of this country_, as
+honorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us."
+
+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 _national sentiment_ 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 _part_ 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.
+
+These witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit; nor their
+testimony comments to make it intelligible--their _names_ are their
+_endorsers_ and their strong words their own interpreters. We wave all
+comments. Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to _hear_, 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."
+
+Some of the points established by the testimony are--The universal
+expectation that the _moral_ 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 _approval_ with all parties, and when
+finally passed, received the vote _of every member of Congress from each
+of the slaveholding states_. The south also had every reason for
+believing that the first Congress under the constitution would _ratify_
+that ordinance--as it _did_ unanimously.
+
+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 _with their_ 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, _rights_ no longer--free speech
+struck dumb--free _men_ 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!
+
+The spirit and power of our fathers, where are they? Their deep homage
+always and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with its _inseparable
+signs--free speech and a free press_--their reverence for justice,
+liberty, _rights_ and all-pervading law, where are they?
+
+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.
+
+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 _not_.
+If they _were_, 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" _also_, and of course a
+_constitutional_ act; but if the legislative acts "depriving" them of
+"liberty" were _not_ "due process of law," then the slaves were deprived
+of liberty _unconstitutionally_, and these acts are _void_. In that case
+the _constitution emancipates them_.
+
+If the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase "due
+process of law," is _judicial_ process solely, it is granted, and that
+fact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District _has_ 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 _unconstitutionally_,
+and is therefore _free by the constitution_. This is asserted only of
+the slaves under the "exclusive legislation" of Congress.
+
+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 _this_, provided it will do something _else_, that is,
+_pay_ for them. Thus, instead of denying the _power_, the objector not
+only admits, but _affirms_ it, as the ground of the inference that
+compensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence of
+_one_ power, the objector asserts the existence of _two_--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.
+
+If Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private
+property, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally,
+_legalise_ the perpetration of such acts, by _others_, nor _protect_
+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 _product_
+than the producer?--to the _interest_, than the owner of the
+_principal_?--to the hands and arms, than he from whose shoulders they
+swing?--to the body and soul, than he whose they _are_? Congress not
+only impairs but annihilates the right of private property, while it
+withholds from the slaves of the District their title to _themselves_.
+What! Congress powerless to protect a man's right to _himself_, when it
+can make inviolable the right to a _dog_! 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 "_take_?" Nothing. What would it _hold_? Nothing. What
+would it put to "public use?" Nothing. Instead of _taking_ "private
+property," Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say "_private
+property_ shall not _be_ 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 _paramount_, he shall be protected in it." True,
+Congress may not arbitrarily take property, _as_ 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 _condition_ of the slave--makes him
+his own _proprietor_ instead of the property of another. It determines a
+question of _original right_ 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.
+
+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 _intent_. The _design_ of the provision,
+was to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right
+to "take property" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to
+adjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his
+own secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of
+legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the
+District, it would be _adopting_, 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 _condition_ 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.
+
+Finally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of
+"_property_." The constitution of the United States does not recognise
+slaves as "PROPERTY" any where, and it does not recognise them in _any
+sense_ in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in the
+constitution recognise them as "persons." Every reference to them points
+_solely_ to the element of _personality_; and thus, by the strongest
+implication, declares that the constitution _knows_ them only as
+"persons," and _will_ 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
+_personality_--a refusal to recognise them as chattels--"persons _held_
+to service." Are _oxen_ "_held_ to service?" That can be affirmed only
+of _persons_. 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 _persons_ by the exaction of their _allegiance_
+to the government. For offences against the government slaves are tried
+as _persons_; as persons they are entitled to counsel for their defence,
+to the rules of evidence, and to "due process of law," and as _persons_
+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 _persons_. 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
+_property_ 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 _personality_. In the invariable recognition of
+slaves as _persons_, 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 _human_ 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 _men_, that they might be shorn both of
+liberty and humanity.
+
+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 _does not consider
+these persons,_ (slaves,) _as a species of property._"--[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 _state_ 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, _can be held as a
+slave_.
+
+Men can hold _property_ 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 _slaves_ 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," _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._
+
+Finally, in the clause under consideration, "private property" is not to
+be taken "without _just_ compensation." "JUST!" If justice is to be
+appealed to in determining the amount of compensation, let her determine
+the _grounds_ also. If it be her province to say _how much_ compensation
+is "just," it is hers to say whether _any_ is "just,"--whether the slave
+is "just" property _at all_, rather than a "_person_." Then, if justice
+adjudges the slave to be "private property," it adjudges him to be _his
+own_ property, since the right to one's _self_ 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 _equivalent_ for one's
+self--the least that can be done is to restore to him his original
+private property.
+
+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 _setting up_ of such a claim.
+
+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 _absolute_ 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 _is in every sense absolute_.
+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.
+
+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 _no power_ to do that for which it was made the
+_depository of power_? CANNOT the United States' Government fulfil the
+purpose _for which it was brought into being_?
+
+To abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; but
+to "_establish justice_" between two parties. To emancipate the slave,
+is to "_establish justice_" between him and his master--to throw around
+the person, character, conscience, liberty, and domestic relations of
+the one, _the same law_ that secures and blesses the other. In other
+words, to prevent by _legal restraints_ 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
+_enact_ that innocence and helplessness--now _free plunder_--are
+entitled to _legal protection_; and that power, avarice, and lust, shall
+no longer gorge upon their spoils under the license, and by the
+ministrations of _law_! Congress, by possessing "exclusive legislation
+in all cases whatsoever," has a _general protective power_ for ALL the
+inhabitants of the District. If it has no power to protect _one_ man, it
+has none to protect another--none to protect _any_--and if it _can_
+protect _one_ man and is _bound_ to protect him, it _can_ protect
+_every_ man--all men--and is _bound_ 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
+"_case_" 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 _one_
+class against the other, it gives power to protect _either_ 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 _general_ power in
+the clause so often cited, and an _express_ one in that cited
+above--"Congress shall have power to suppress insurrections." So much
+for a _supposed_ case. Here follows a _real_ one. The whites in the
+District _are perpetrating these identical acts_ 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 _all_ cases
+whatsoever." For the grant of power to suppress insurrections, is an
+_unconditional_ 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 _actual_ insurrection, from the same
+source whence it derived its power to suppress the _same_ acts in the
+case _supposed_. If one case is an insurrection, the other is. The
+_acts_ in both are the same; the _actors_ 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
+_rights_, 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 _whole lives_ 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 _at all_, it
+has power to suppress them _in_ all.
+
+It has been shown already that _allegiance_ is exacted of the slave. Is
+the government of the United States unable to grant _protection_ where
+it exacts _allegiance_? 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? _Protection is the_ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT _of every human
+being under the exclusive legislation of Congress who has not forfeited
+it by crime._
+
+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
+_not entitled to compensation_. 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 _property_ and _persons_, it surely might stop _half-way_,
+destroy them _as property_ while it legalized their existence as
+_persons_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 _as_ property when the public safety requires
+it, especially if it transform into a _protection_ and _defence_ that
+which as _property_ 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 _seven thousand slaves_. 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, _transforms
+them into enemies_;" and Richard Henry Lee, in the Va. house of
+Burgesses in 1758, declared that to those who held them, "_slaves must
+be natural enemies_." Is Congress so _impotent_ that it _cannot_
+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 _necessity_ 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 _cannot_ arrest the
+process that _made_ them "enemies," and still goads to deadlier hate by
+fiery trials, and day by day adds others to their number? Is _this_
+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.
+
+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 _friends_ 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
+_they_ 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.
+
+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 _weaken_ them, and renders
+them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign
+nations, they will be the means of _inviting_ 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 _internal_ as
+external. _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._" See Cong. Reg. vol. 1, p. 310, 11.
+
+
+
+POSTSCRIPT
+
+My apology for adding a _postscript_, 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 _any_ 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 _true
+touchstones_, 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 _no_-faced
+_non-committalism_, 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,--_Remember the Missouri Question, and the fate of those who then
+sold the North, and their own birthright_!
+
+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.
+
+
+    "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."
+
+
+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 _professedly_ 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.
+
+The passage of this resolution--with the vote of every southern senator,
+forms a new era in the discussion of this question.
+
+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 _true_ ground--that finally when the question was
+taken, every slaveholding senator, including Mr. Calhoun himself, voted
+for the resolution.
+
+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.
+
+The _only_ 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 "_as it still continues in both of them_, it could
+not be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was
+implied in the cession." &c. The _sole argument_ is _not_ that exclusive
+_sovereignty_ has no power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction,
+_nor_ that the powers of even _ordinary legislation_ 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 _unexpressed expectation_ of one of the parties that the other
+would not "in _all_ cases" _use_ the power which said party had
+consented _might be used_ "_in all cases_," _prohibits_ the use of it.
+The only cardinal point in the discussion, is here not only _yielded_,
+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 _sole reason_ 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 "_slavery still continues in those states_,"--thus
+explicitly admitting, that if slavery did _not_ "still continue" in
+those States, Congress _could_ abolish it in the District. The same
+admission is made also in the _premises_, which state that slavery
+existed in those states _at the time of the cession_, &c. Admitting that
+if it had _not_ existed there then, but had grown up in the District
+under _United States' laws_, Congress might constitutionally abolish it.
+Or that if the ceded parts of those states had been the _only_ 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 _requires_
+Congress in such case to abolish slavery in the District "by the _good
+faith implied_ 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 _they_ might think would unfavorably bear upon their interests;
+_themselves_ of course being the judges.
+
+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 _expressed_ in the acts of
+cession--that in their _terms_ 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 _intent_. 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 _act_ 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 _on itself alone_! Mr. Clay and the other senators who voted for
+the resolution, _guess_ that Maryland and Virginia supposed that
+Congress would by no means _use_ 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 _assumed expectation_ 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!
+
+But let us survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia
+leave so much to be "_implied_?" 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
+_making known_ their wishes? If, as honorable senators tell us, Maryland
+and Virginia did verily travail with such abounding _faith_, why brought
+they forth no _works_?
+
+It is as true in _legislation_ as in religion, that the only _evidence_
+of "faith" is _works_, and that "faith" _without_ works is _dead_, i.e.
+has no _power_. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing
+_expressed_, an "implied" _faith_ without works, is _omnipotent_. Mr.
+Clay is lawyer enough to know that even a _senatorial hypothesis_ as to
+what must have been the _understanding_ of Maryland and Virginia about
+congressional exercise of constitutional power, _abrogates no grant_,
+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
+_before their eyes_, and that both of them declared those acts made "in
+_pursuance_" of said clause. Those states were aware that the United
+States in their constitution had left nothing to be "_implied_" 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 _stipulations_. Full well did they know
+also that those were times when, in matters of high import, _nothing_
+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 _acts of
+cession_. The severities of a long and terrible discipline had taught
+them to guard at all points _legislative grants_, that their exact
+import and limit might be self-evident--leaving no scope for a blind
+"faith," that _somehow_ 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 _just enough_ 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."
+
+Further: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their "implied
+faith" in _words_, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a
+proviso, declaring that Congress should not "exercise exclusive
+legislation in _all_ cases whatsoever over the District," but that the
+"case" of _slavery_ 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 _not remote_;"
+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 _tolerated_, though she then contained
+about half the slaves in the Union. Was this the time to stipulated for
+the _perpetuity_ of slavery under the exclusive legislation of Congress?
+and that too at the _same_ session of Congress when _every one_ 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?
+
+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 _speedily_ abolished--are we to be told that those
+states _designed_ to bind Congress _never_ to terminate it? Are we to
+adopt the monstrous conclusion that this was the intent of the Ancient
+Dominion--thus to _bind_ the United States by an "implied faith," and
+that when the United States _accepted_ the cession, she did solemnly
+thus plight her troth, and that Virginia did then so _understand_ it?
+Verily one would think that honorable senators supposed themselves
+deputed to do our _thinking_ as well as our legislation, or rather, that
+they themselves were absolved from such drudgery by virtue of their
+office!
+
+Another absurdity of this dogma about "implied faith" is, that where
+there was no power to exact an _express_ pledge, there was none to
+demand an _implied_ one, and where there was no power to _give_ the one,
+there was none to give the _other_. 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 _breach_ of the Constitution. Further, the Congress which accepted the
+cession was competent to pass a resolution pledging itself not to _use
+all_ the power over the District committed to it by the Constitution.
+But here its power ended. Its resolution would only bind _itself_. Could
+it bind the _next_ 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 _shall_ 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 _themselves_ never to abolish slavery
+within their own territories--the ceded parts included. Where then would
+they get power to bind _another_ 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?
+
+But perhaps we shall be told, that the "implied faith" in the acts of
+cession of Maryland and Virginia was _not_ that Congress should _never_
+abolish slavery in the District, but that it should not do it until
+_they_ 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 _not_
+abolish until _they_ do; and then just as "good faith" that Congress
+_will_ abolish _when_ they do! Excellently accommodated! Did those
+States suppose that Congress would legislate over the national domain,
+the common jurisdiction of _all_, for Maryland and Virginia alone? And
+who, did they suppose, would be judges in the matter?--themselves
+merely? or the whole Union?
+
+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
+"_instructions_" from head quarters--instructions not to be disregarded
+without a violation of that "good faith implied in the cession," &c.
+
+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 _sounding boards_ called "Senate
+Chamber" and "Representatives' Hall," for the purpose of sending abroad
+"by authority" _national_ echoes of _state_ legislation!--permitted also
+to keep in their pay a corps of pliant _national_ musicians, with
+peremptory instructions to sound on any line of the staff according as
+Virginia and Maryland may give the _sovereign_ key note!
+
+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 _principle_
+pervading both. They proceed virtually upon the hypothesis that the will
+and pleasure of Virginia and Maryland are _paramount_ to those of the
+_Union_. 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 _agent_ to consummate the object, there could
+hardly have been higher assumption or louder vaunting. The sole object
+of _having_ 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 _object_ of a federal district,
+that it was designed to guard and promote the interests of _all_ the
+states, and that it was to be legislated over _for this end_--the
+resolution proceeds upon an hypothesis _totally the reverse_. It takes a
+single point of _state_ policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL interests,
+utterly overshadowing them; abrogating national _rights_; making void a
+clause of the Constitution; humbling the general government into a
+subject--crouching for favors to a superior, and that too _on its own
+exclusive jurisdiction_. All the attributes of sovereignty vested in
+Congress by the Constitution it impales upon the point of an alleged
+_implication_. 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 _its own territory_ 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 _their own benefit_, not for
+that of the District, except as the prosperity of the District is
+involved, and necessary to the _general advantage_."--[Life of Pinkney,
+p.  612.]
+
+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
+_States_ and the _people_," (not of _two_ states, and a mere _fraction_
+of the people;) 2d. "Over a District placed under _their_ control," i.e.
+under the control of the _whole_ of the States, not under the control of
+_two twenty-sixths_ of them. 3d. That it was thus put under their
+Control "_for THEIR OWN benefit_," the benefit of all the States
+_equally_; not to secure special benefits to Maryland and Virginia, (or
+what it might be _conjectured_ 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 _District_,"
+except as that is _connected_ with, and _a means of promoting_ the
+_general_ advantage. If this is the case with the _District_, which is
+_directly_ concerned, it is pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia,
+who are but _indirectly_ 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 "_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_." Cong. Reg.
+vol. 1. p. 310, 11.
+
+But these are only the initiatory absurdities of this "good faith
+_implied_." 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
+_equally_ a violation for Congress to do it _with the consent_, 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 _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_,' &c.
+
+But let us see where this principle of the _thirty-six_ will lead us. If
+"implied faith" to Maryland and Virginia _restrains_ Congress from the
+abolition of slavery in the District, it _requires_ Congress to do in
+the District what those states have done within their bounds, i.e.,
+restrain _others_ from abolishing it. Upon the same principle Congress
+is _bound_, by the doctrine of Mr. Clay's resolution, to _prohibit
+emancipation_ within the District. There is no _stopping place_ for this
+plighted "faith." Congress must not only refrain from laying violent
+hands on slavery, _itself_, 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!
+
+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 _as_ it exists in those
+states. If to abolish _every_ form of slavery in the District would
+violate good faith, to abolish _the_ 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 _slavery_, but
+with the _Maryland and Virginia systems_ of slavery. The faith of those
+states not being in the preservation of _a_ system, but of _their_
+system; otherwise Congress, instead of _sustaining_, 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 _real
+estate_, 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 _until_
+Virginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any _part_ of it that
+exists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any _form_ or _appendage_ of
+it still existing in those states. 4th. _To abolish_ when they do. 5th.
+To increase or abate its rigors _when, how_, and _as_ 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.
+
+But here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states should
+steer different courses--then there would be _two_ wakes! Can Congress
+float in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! Its
+obsequiousness equals its "power of legislation in _all_ cases
+whatsoever." It can float _up_ 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 _at once_, 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 _man_ can serve two
+masters--but if "corporations have _no_ souls," analogy would absolve
+Congress on that score, or at most give it only _a very small soul_--not
+large enough to be at all in the way, as an _exception_ to the universal
+rule laid down in the maxim!
+
+In following out the absurdities of this "_implied_ good faith," it will
+be seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to
+_all the subjects_ of _legislation_ 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 _immorality_, 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,
+_unless Virginia and Maryland took the lead_, would violate the "good
+faith implied in the cession," &c.
+
+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 _possessions_ and _titles_
+confirmed to them, and be _protected_ in the enjoyment of their _rights_
+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 _held
+slaves_. Three years after the cession, the Virginia delegation in
+Congress _proposed_ 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!
+
+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
+_first_ 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.
+
+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!
+
+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 _intent_, 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!
+
+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, _will not_, 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.
+
+Have the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the
+lessons of experience? If lost to _reason_, are they dead to _instinct_
+also? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self preservation? And
+shall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal sacrifice?
+
+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.
+
+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 _amended_ form. It will
+be seen however, that it underwent no material modification.
+
+"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."
+
+The vote upon the Resolution stood as follows:
+
+_Yeas_.--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.
+
+_Nays_.--Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, PRENTISS, RUGGLES,
+SMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER.
+
+
+
+
+
+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.txt or 11271.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
+
+
diff --git a/old/11271.zip b/old/11271.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8be1d1d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/11271.zip