diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/11271.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/11271.txt | 24290 |
1 files changed, 24290 insertions, 0 deletions
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 + + |