ANOTHER EXAMPLE.
“I shall never forget the scene which took place in the city of St. Louis while I was yet in slavery. A man and his wife, both slaves, were brought from the country to the city for sale. They were taken to the rooms of Austin & Savage, auctioneers. Several slave speculators, who are always to be found at auctions where slaves are to be sold, were present. The man was first put up and sold to the highest bidder. The wife was next ordered to ascend the platform. I was present. She slowly obeyed the order. The auctioneer commenced, and soon several hundred dollars were bid. My eyes were intensely fixed on the face of the woman, whose cheeks were wet with tears. But a conversation between the slave and his new master soon arrested my attention. I drew near them to listen. The slave was begging his new master to purchase his wife. Said he, ‘Master, if you will only buy Fanny I know you will get the worth of your money. She is a good cook, a good washer, and her mistress liked her very much. If you will only buy her how happy I will be!’ The new master replied that he did not want her, but, if she sold cheap, he would purchase her. I watched the countenance of the man while the different persons were bidding on his wife. When his new master bid you could see the smile on his countenance, and the tears stop, but as another would, you could see the countenance change, and the tears start afresh. * * But this suspense did not last long. The wife was struck off to the highest bidder, who proved to be not the owner of her husband. As soon as they became aware that they were to be separated, they both burst into tears; and as she descended from the auction stand, the husband walking up to her and taking her by the hand, said, ‘Well, Fanny we are to part forever on earth. You have been a good wife to me. I did all I could to get my new master to buy you but he did not want you. I hope you will try to meet me in heaven. I shall try to meet you there.’ The wife made no reply but her sobs and cries told too well her own feelings.” (Narrative of William Brown.)
[CHAPTER IV.]
Slavery Illustrated—Continued.
THE CHATTEL PRINCIPLE IN PRACTICE.
3. Slavery disregards the parental and filial relations. The family is a type of heaven. It is the foundation of the social system—of social order, refinement and happiness. Destroy this relation and the most enlightened people will speedily relapse into barbarism. It is a God-instituted relation, and around it Jesus Christ has thrown the solemn sanction of his authority. Nature implants in the hearts of parents an affection for their offspring which is sweeter than life and stronger than death; and this affection, when associated with intelligence and religion, eminently fits them to care for helpless infancy, to guide the feet of inexperienced youth, and to lead the opening heart and expanding mind to virtue and to God. Without the soothing, ennobling and virtue-inspiring influences which emanate from the domestic hearth, this world, I fear, would become a pandemonium.
But slavery, true to its leading principle, utterly disregards and ruthlessly tramples upon the parental and filial relations. As soon as a child is born of a slave-mother it is put down on the table of stock and is henceforth subject to the conditions of property. The father cannot say—“This is my son. I will train him up in the fear of God, bestow upon him a liberal education and by help divine make a true man of him, that he may be my staff in old age.” No, the slaveholder has a usurped claim upon the boy, which, in the code of the “lower law,” annihilates entirely the father’s claim. The mother is not permitted to press the new born babe to her throbbing bosom and rejoice over it, saying—“This is my daughter—I will by the assistance of grace give her tender mind a pious inclination, encourage her to walk in the path of virtue and religion, to seek the ‘good part,’ chosen by Mary of old, that she may become an ornament of her sex.” No, that female child is a valuable part of the planter’s stock, and the mother is encouraged to nurse it well that it may bring a high price in the market! Parents have no more to say as to the disposition of their children than animals have as to what shall be done with their young. There is not a law in any State, if we may except Louisiana, which imposes the slightest restraint upon masters who may be disposed to sell the children of slaves. In Louisiana an old law prohibits the separation of slave children from their mothers before they are ten years of age. But this law, were it not a dead letter as we are assured it is, would afford but a trifling mitigation of the wrong. At any time the master may gather up all the saleable children on his plantation, submit them to the inspection of a trader, strike a bargain for the lot, and then start them off like a drove of young cattle, without saying one word about it to the fathers or mothers of those children. And it often occurs that when the slave mother returns from the field, weary with the toils of the day, she finds her hut desolate. Where are my children? she asks. She calls—no answer—and is presently informed by a fellow-slave that they are sold and gone! Yes—a christian (?) master has taken advantage of her absence and sent them off without giving her a parting word with them! They shall never more return! And yet this distressed mother has no redress.
Maternal love flows in a slave-mother’s bosom with all its wonted depth and intensity, and the total disregard of this affection is the occasion of the deepest sorrows recorded in the annals of slavery.
“In slaveholding States, except in Louisiana no law exists to prevent the violent separation of parents from their children.” (Stroud.) A slave has no more legal authority over his child than a cow has over her calf. (Jay.) John Davis, a dealer in slaves at Hamburg, S. C., advertises that he has on hands, direct from Va., “one hundred and twenty likely young negroes of both sexes; among them small girls, suitable for nurses, and several small boys without their mothers.”
Frederick Douglass relates that “when he was three years old his mother was sent to work on a plantation eight or ten miles distant, and after that he never saw her except in the night. After her days toil she would occasionally walk over to her child, lie down with him in her arms, hush him to sleep in her bosom, then rise up and walk back again to be ready for her field work by daylight.”—Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
The following incident occurred within the present year (1853.) We copy from the Cleveland True Democrat.
“It will be remembered by some of our citizens that about two or three months since, a colored man visited our city for the purpose of obtaining money enough to buy his child that was held as a slave in Kentucky. Through the generosity of J. H. Smith and his congregation, with some added by private individuals, the amount was raised, and the happy negro went on his way rejoicing. Now comes the saddest part of the tale. When the poor colored man arrived at his home, he immediately handed the money, to obtain which had cost him so much labor, over to a friend, who started immediately to Kentucky. Arriving there, the money was laid before the master by the gentleman, when to the utter astonishment of the latter, the slaveholder burst into a fiendish laugh, and said ‘he’d be —— if he would sell the boy at any price.’ He refused all terms, laughed at all exhortations, and finally ordered the gentleman who wished to purchase the boy out of the house. He left sorrowfully, knowing how his bad success would affect the father, who was in a delirium of joy at the idea of seeing his long lost son. Imagine the feeling of that man when it was communicated to him that his boy was lost forever. Our informant tells us that he said not a word, nor wept; but any one familiar with a human heart, could tell what agony that poor black man was in. He seems to have grown ten years older, and it is feared, unless some change takes place, that he will soon die. His life seems worse than death, and he loudly prays for the latter to come.”
The holder of that boy only did what the laws allowed him to do, and his conduct was in perfect consistency with chattel slavery. Men can do as they like about selling the property which the law allows them.
Scenes of the most provoking and heart-rending character, scenes in which humanity is outraged, scenes which would bring the blood to the cheek of a savage, even to behold, are enacted in all the Southern States from day to day, with seeming unconcern! The most bitter cries pierce the skies and go up to heaven apparently unheard by man. “Here is a man, a slave-trader, driving before him two boys with a hickory stick, and carrying a child under his arm. At a little distance is the mother with chains on her wrists, stretching out her hand toward the babe; but is prevented, because a strong man holds her while she endeavors to follow her shrieking babe and her sobbing boys. The owner who sold the two boys, stands calmly, unmoved, smoking a cigar, while the overseer holds the mother, and the trader whips off the boys and carries with him the screaming child.” This is precisely the way that other live stock is sold, and those dealers are only doing what the law allows. No one is surprised at them. They may be respectable citizens and good church members!
Christian reader, pass not over these facts with a light heart. I beseech you to think upon them as a man and a christian ought. You love home, you esteem family relations the dearest and most sacred upon earth, and you would resist with all your power a tyranny which would invade your own family circle and carry away your children for the exclusive benefit of others. For humanity’s sake let your sympathies go out in behalf of the millions of your fellow creatures who are deprived of all the blessings of family and home. Have you not a heart to bleed for those mothers whose children, in tender youth, are ruthlessly torn away from them for no higher object than the pecuniary advantage of their masters? J. G. Whittier, the “slave’s poet,” represents in mournful strains the Virginia slave mother’s lament for her daughters, sold and gone to the far South.
Gone, gone—sold and gone,
To the rice-swamp dank and lone.
Where the slave-whip ceaseless swings,
Where the noisesome insect stings,
Where the fever demon strews
Poison with the falling dews,
Where the sickly sunbeams glare
Through the hot and misty air,—
Gone, gone,—sold and gone,
To the rice-swamp dank and lone,
From Virginia’s hills and waters,—
Woe is me, my stolen daughters!
Gone, gone,—sold and gone,
To the rice-swamp dank and lone.
There no mother’s eye is near them,
There no mother’s ear can hear them;
Never, when the torturing lash
Seams their back with many a gash,
Shall a mother’s kindness bless them,
Or a mother’s arms caress them.
Gone, gone, &c.
Gone, gone,—sold and gone,
To the rice-swamp dank and lone.
O, when weary, sad, and slow,
From the fields at night they go,
Faint with toil, and racked with pain,
To their cheerless homes again,—
There no brother’s voice shall greet them,
There no father’s welcome meet them.
Gone, gone, &c.
Gone, gone,—sold and gone,
To the rice-swamp dank and lone.
From the tree whose shadow lay
On their childhood’s place of play;
From the cool spring where they drank;
Rock and hill, and rivulet bank;
From the solemn house of prayer,
And the holy counsels there,—
Gone, gone, &c.
Gone, gone, sold and gone,
To the rice-swamp dank and lone;
Toiling through the weary day,
And at night the spoiler’s prey.
O, that they had earlier died,
Sleeping calmly, side by side,
Where the tyrant’s power is o’er,
And the fetter galls no more!
Gone, gone, &c.
Gone, gone,—sold and gone,
To the rice-swamp dank and lone.
By the holy love He beareth,
By the bruised reed He spareth,
O, may He to whom alone
All their cruel wrongs are known
Still their hope and refuge prove,
With a more than mother’s love!
Gone, gone, &c.
[CHAPTER V.]
Slavery Illustrated—Continued.
THE CHATTEL PRINCIPLE IN PRACTICE.
4. Slavery utterly impoverishes its victims. The earth is an inheritance bestowed upon man by the common Father of all; hence every human being has an indefeasible right to live upon it and to acquire a possession in it. This right is not simply conventional, but it belongs to man as man.
Now slavery is directly opposed to this law of nature. It strips a slave of everything, and of the power to acquire anything. No one is so poor as a slave. He cannot own a coat, or a pair of shoes, a house, or a foot of land. No industry, economy, skill or patriotism can release him from this state of destitution, because it is a logical result of the relation in which he is placed by the slave code. Being himself a chattel, whatever he acquires or in any way gains possession of, is, as a matter of course, the acquirement and possession of his master. Hence, while living in a land of universal plenty, and toiling incessantly upon the fruitful earth, created and adorned for the use of every man, no alms-house pauper is so wretchedly impoverished as the American slave.
“Slaves have no legal rights in things, real or personal; but whatever they may acquire, belongs in point of law to their masters.” (Stroud.) “Slaves are incapable of inheriting or transmitting property.” (Civil Code.)
Here is a case which will illustrate the point in hand. A slave by the name of Frederick enlisted and fought bravely through the American Revolution. In 1821 his name was found on the muster roll, and a warrant was issued granting him the soldier’s bounty of a thousand acres of land. Now whose land was that? Reason and justice would answer, it belonged to the black veteran and his heirs forever. But the heirs of Frederick’s old master understood something about slave law, and brought the case into court that it might be legally determined who owned the bounty land. After much learned argument, Judge Catron delivered the following decision:—“Frederick, the slave of Col. Patton, earned this warrant by his services in the continental line. What is earned by the slave belongs to the master, by the common law, the civil law, and the recognized rules of property in the slaveholding States of this Union.”
This was an extreme case, and as Pres. Blanchard observes, “if Shylock’s bond of human flesh might have been relaxed, if ever the laws of slavery might have been mitigated in practice, it ought to have been in the case of this veteran soldier.” But the “pound of flesh” was exacted. The law reducing slaves to utter pauperism is inexorable. Poor Frederick had no more claim to that land than Col. Patton’s horse had.
5. Slavery authorizes the violation of the most solemn contracts. Strictly speaking, a slave cannot become a party to a legal contract. His inability to do so arises out of his relation to society, and the evil genius which presides at all times over legislation for slaves is very careful to permit nothing to be enacted, unless from absolute necessity, that can be construed into an acknowledgment that the slave is a man and has rights which he is authorized to maintain. Hence a contract with a slave may be violated with impunity. He may suffer the most flagrant wrongs, but is barred from courts of justice and can obtain no relief.
On this point the following authorities are quoted.
“Chancery cannot enforce a contract between a master and his slave though the slave perform his part.” (Wheeler.) “One principle prevails in all the States * * and that is that a slave cannot make a contract, not even the contract of marriage.” (ib.)
“In the case of Sawney vs. Carter the court refused to enforce a promise by a master to emancipate his slave where the conditions of the promise had been partly complied with. The court proceeded upon the principle that it was not competent to a court in Chancery to enforce a contract between a master and slave, even though the contract should be fully complied with on the part of the slave.” (Goodell.)
In numerous instances masters and other white persons have taken advantage of this unjust and malicious feature of slave law. It is no uncommon occurrence for a slave to contract with his master for freedom. He agrees to raise, by extra labor, a specified sum of money which is to be the price of his liberty. Animated with the hope of obtaining that precious right for which he has long sighed, he endures incredible hardships, toils night after night, and, at the end of many weary years, lays before his master a part or the whole of the price agreed upon. Now when this is done, the master may, in perfect accordance with American slave law, pocket the hard-earned money and sell the slave to the next trader, or keep him until death in his own service. If the slave repine at this treatment, he may be whipped into submission. If he run away, he may be pursued with revolvers and blood-hounds, and we are all required by the Fugitive Slave Law to help catch him and carry him back to his faithless master. A case occurred within the present year in Ky., which illustrates this odious feature of slave law. Here is a brief statement of the facts.
“Sam Norris, a colored man, has been living in Covington about five years, has married a free colored woman and has had by her several children. He belongs to a Mr. J. N. Patton, of Virginia, who permitted him to come to Covington, and engage in whatever services he saw proper, on condition that Sam would pay him out of his earnings, a stipulated sum per annum, we believe, about $100. The surplus, whatever it might be, was to belong to the slave. Sam was punctual for several years. He was sober and industrious, and in his humble way, very prosperous. About two years ago Mr. Patton came west on a visit and agreed with Sam that if he would pay him the sum of $400 he would give him his freedom. Sam gratefully accepted the proposal, and at once paid down out of his hard earnings $135 and has since given his master some $40 or $50 more.
“Patton now comes forward to rescind the contract and claim his slave. The case was yesterday decided by the Hon. Judge Pryor, in favor of Patton. In delivering his decision, his Honor stated the following facts:
“1st. That the laws of Kentucky recognize but two modes of liberating slaves, by will and by deeds of emancipation.
“2d. That a slave cannot make a contract.
“3d. That the contract was executory, and at the time fixed for the negro’s freedom, future and contingent.
“4th. That so long as Sam was a slave, the master was entitled to his services, and the money he (Patton) had received was in law his own.
“The opinion was able and elaborate, and the authorities numerous and decided. His Honor characterized the case as one of great “hardship and cruelty,” and every one in the court room seemed to sympathize deeply with the poor negro.”
A lady at St. Louis, Mo., related to Mrs. F. D. Gage the following circumstance, which transpired in that city a short time ago.
“I had, said the lady, an old colored woman washing for me a few years ago, for four or five years—one of the most faithful, truthful, and pious women, I ever knew—black or white. She was once a slave, belonging to Davenport. But he was a kinder man than other men, and gave her the privilege of buying her freedom for one thousand dollars! This sum the old and faithful creature earned and paid herself. Only think of it!—one thousand dollars for the privilege of buying what our wise statesmen call the “inalienable right of men,” bestowed by the Creator. When free she stipulated for the freedom of her son, and this, with years of toil, she earned; and when he came to manhood he too was free.
“Think of this, fair mothers of our land! Ye who hug to your heart the children of your love, and feel a mother’s love and this for them. You work to clothe, to school and make comfortable those dependent upon your care; but which of you can measure the toil that this poor, stricken mother had to bear, ere she filed away the galling chains from the limbs of her child!
“Well, when the mother and son were free, they pledged themselves to the owner of another plantation, to pay another thousand for the wife and child of the ransomed son. The master allowed the woman to come to the city, and live with her husband, and work on her own hook—paying him so much per month. Three hundred dollars has been paid. Some time in April, this oppressed class had a public tea-party and fair, to gather funds to furnish their church, a neat edifice on —— St. The mother, son, and wife were there, returned home, or started home, about midnight—the horses ran away, and George, attempting to get off the carriage to assist the driver, fell, and his head was dashed to pieces against the corner of a curb-stone.
“He died instantly, and the morning papers announced the fact, and spoke of him as “highly worthy and respectable, and a member of ---- Church.” But no sooner had the owner of Susan, the wife, heard of George’s death, than he hurried to the city post-haste, and took the afflicted wife from their house, drove her to the Slave auction, and sold her to southern traders.
“Thus were the three hundred dollars lost to those who earned it, the old, toiling mother left childless; and the young wife, but yesterday rejoicing in the strength and hope of freedom and love, suddenly turned into a chattel, and sold “away down South,” to be a beast of burden—perhaps for a Legree.”
“When did it happen inquired Mrs. Gage?”
“Why, here, lately. I met the old mother as I came from the “Fourth” Pic nic. She was dressed in deep mourning. I had not seen her for a long time, for they had got them a home, and she did not wash any more. I asked her what had happened, and she told me all. O! Mrs. G., how it made me feel! I celebrating our liberty, she, a woman—a wife—a mother mourning over enslaved and doubly-wronged children.
““I know there is a God, Mrs. Lilly,” the poor bowed creature said to me, “I know there is a good God, and a Jesus, or I should give up in despair, and sometimes I do; I look up and down and all round, and there is no light!””
Slavery leaves its victims a prey to unchecked avarice. What protection has a slave against the avarice of his master? Let us see. A law of South Carolina provides that slaves shall “not labor to exceed fifteen hours” out of twenty four. This is called protection!
“The slave is driven to the field in the morning about four o’clock. The general calculation is to get them to work by day-light. The time for breakfast is between nine and ten o’clock. This meal is sometimes eaten ‘bite and work,’ others allow fifteen minutes, and this is the only rest the slave has while in the field.” (G. W. Westgate.)
“In North Carolina, the legal standard of food for a slave must not be less than a quart of corn per day. In Louisiana the legal standard is one barrel of Indian corn—or the equivalent thereof in rice, beans or other grain, and a pint of salt, every month.” “The quantity allowed by custom,” said T. S. Clay of Georgia, “is a peck of corn per week.”
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.
“The clothing of slaves by day, and their covering by night, are inadequate either for comfort or decency, in any or most of the slaveholding States.” (Elliott.)
It is notorious that slaves, on large plantations especially, are miserably fed, clothed and lodged, and during busy seasons of the year, most unmercifully worked.
6. Slavery abandons its victims to unbridled lust. Against a master’s lusts a slave has no protection. It is an established principle of the slave code that the testimony of a slave against a white person cannot be received in a court of justice. A slave woman who may be abused cannot resort to the law. To whom can she appeal? To God only. The master may torture her in any way, so that he take not her life, in order to force a compliance with his base designs!
“A very beautiful girl belonging to the estate of John French, a deceased gambler of New Orleans, was sold a few days since, for the round sum of seven thousand dollars! An ugly old bachelor, named Gouch, was the purchaser. The Picayune says that she was remarkable for her beauty and intelligence; and that there was considerable strife as to who should be the purchaser.” (Elliott.)
Any one can understand why that beautiful, intelligent slave girl brought SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS! She was bought for a sacrifice to lust! And the law gave her no protection. It required her to submit unresistingly to the will of her owner and that owner was a base libertine!
7. Slavery exposes its victims to the fury of unrestrained passion. A master in a violent passion may fall upon his slave, and beat him unmercifully without the slightest provocation and the slave has no redress.
“The master is not liable for an assault and battery committed upon the person of his slave.” (Wheeler.)
A Methodist minister, Rev. J. Boucher, relates the following incident:
“While on the Alabama circuit I spent the Sabbath with an old circuit preacher, who was also a doctor, living near ‘the horse shoe,’ celebrated as Gen. Jackson’s battle ground. On Monday morning early, he was reading Pope’s Messiah to me, when his wife called him out. I glanced my eye out of the window, and saw a slave man standing by, and they consulting over him. Presently the doctor took a rawhide from under his coat, and began to cut up the half-naked back of the slave. I saw six or seven inches of the skin turn up perfectly white at every stroke, till the whole back was red with gore. The lacerated man cried out some at first; but at every blow the doctor cried, ‘won’t ye hush? won’t ye hush?’ till the slave finally stood still and groaned. As soon as he had done, the doctor came in panting, almost out of breath, and, addressing me, said, ‘Won’t you go to prayer with us, sir?’ I fell on my knees and prayed, but what I said I knew not. When I came out the poor creature had crept up and knelt by the door during prayer; and his back was a gore of blood quite to his heels.”
Now this slave could not appeal to the law for redress or protection; and the same cruel beating might have been repeated every week until death had come to his relief, and the poor wretch must only bear it—that is all. He was wholly at the mercy of the passions of his master.
8. Slavery subjects its victims to uncontrolled and irresponsible tyranny. Irresponsible power cannot be safely entrusted with the wisest and most humane persons. It is always liable to great abuses. But when all sorts of men are invested with it, when it can be purchased with money, terrible beyond conception are its results. Woe to the unhappy man who is put absolutely into the power of a hard hearted villain. But slaves are property and are exposed to the irresponsible power of their masters.
A master or overseer may, with impunity inflict upon a slave, without the slightest provocation, any kind of torture, which can be endured, and impose upon him all kinds of sufferings, hardships and insults.
He may clothe him in rags, feed him upon corn, lodge him in a mere pen of poles, work him beyond his ability, kick him, cuff him, knock him down, put him in stocks, strip him, tie him to a stake, and with a keen lash lay on his bare back until the blood runs in a stream to his heels. The laws not only allow this to be done, but it is done continually. Women, yes, tender, delicate women; daughters, sisters and mothers are unprotected by the laws. They may be, and are tied to the whipping post; every day that we live, this is done, and their quivering flesh mangled by the cow-skin.
Dr. Howe visited a prison in New Orleans, in which fugitive slaves are confined, and to which many slaves are brought by their masters to be whipped, for which punishment a small fee is paid. In a letter to Hon. Charles Sumner, he says:
“Entering a large paved court-yard, around which ran galleries filled with slaves of all ages, sexes and colors, I heard the snap of a whip, every stroke of which sounded like the sharp crack of a pistol. I turned my head, and beheld a sight which absolutely chilled me to the marrow of my bones, and gave me, for the first time in my life, the sensation of my hair stiffening at the roots. There lay a black girl flat upon her face, on a board, her two thumbs tied, and fastened to one end, her feet tied, and drawn tightly to the other end, while a strap passed over the small of her back, and, fastened around the board, compressed her closely to it. Below the strap she was entirely naked. By her side, and six feet off, stood a huge monster with a long whip, which he applied with dreadful power and wonderful precision. Every stroke brought away a strip of skin, which clung to the lash, or fell quivering on the pavement, while the blood followed after it. The poor creature writhed and shrieked, and in a voice which showed alike her fear of death and her dreadful agony, screamed to her master, who stood at her head, ‘O, spare my life! don’t cut my soul out!’ But still fell the horrid lash; still strip after strip peeled off from the skin; gash after gash was cut in her living flesh, until it became a livid and bloody mass of raw and quivering muscle. It was with the greatest difficulty I refrained from springing upon the torturer, and arresting his lash; but, alas! what could I do, but turn aside and hide my tears for the sufferer, and my blushes for humanity? This was in a public and regularly-organized prison; the punishment was one recognized and authorized by the law. But think you that the poor wretch had committed a heinous offense, and had been convicted thereof and sentenced to the lash? Not at all. She was brought by her master to be whipped by the common executioner, without trial, judge or jury, just at his beck or nod, for some real or supposed offense, or to gratify his own whim or malice. And he may bring her day after day, without cause assigned, and inflict any number of lashes he pleases, short of twenty-five, provided only he pays the fee. Or, if he choose, he may have a private whipping board on his own premises, and brutalize himself there.”
All this is done according to law. “We cannot allow,” said Judge Ruffin, “the right of the master to be brought into discussion in the courts of justice. The slave, to remain a slave, must be made sensible that there is NO APPEAL FROM HIS MASTER.” The same Judge decided—that “THE POWER OF THE MASTER MUST BE ABSOLUTE IN ORDER TO RENDER THE SUBMISSION OF THE SLAVE PERFECT.” How dreadful is this tyranny!
[CHAPTER VI.]
Slavery Illustrated—Continued.
SEVERITY OF THE LAWS AGAINST SLAVES.
As the laws provide for the degradation of the slave to a state of the most stupid ignorance, it would naturally be supposed that little would be required in the way of obedience, and that when a slave did trespass a very light punishment would be meted out to him. Evidently this would be the humane and just course, for where little is given little should be required. In this, however, as in most other things slavery is precisely contrary to nature, humanity and reason.
Slaves are punished by the laws for numerous acts which are in themselves perfectly right.
“For seeking liberty a slave is proclaimed an outlaw and may be lawfully killed.” (Goodell.) “He may be punished for attending religious meetings at night. He may be publicly whipped for keeping a gun, or a pistol. For visiting a wife or child without a written pass, he may be whipped. For striking a white person, no matter how great the provocation, whipping—and for the second or third offence, DEATH.” (Goodell.) These are but specimens of the cruel and vexatious laws by which the slave’s life is embittered. He, poor wretch, must have so many lashes on the bare back for almost every thing which his manhood prompts him to do. He must always be on the look out to act and feel as a mere brute—he must crouch and bend in constant abjectness or his back shall pay the penalty. But for actual crimes the disproportion between the punishment of slaves and white persons is very great.
“In Va., by the revised code of 1819, there are seventy-one offenses for which the penalty is death when committed by slaves and imprisonment when committed by the whites.” (Jay’s Inquiry.)
“In Mississippi there are seventeen offenses punishable with death when committed by slaves, which, if committed by white persons, are either punished by fines or imprisonment, or punishment not provided for by the statute or at common law.” (Goodell.)
A law of Md., provides that—“Any slave for rambling in the night, or riding on horseback or running away, may be punished by whipping, cropping and branding in the cheeks or otherwise, not rendering him unfit for labor.”
And yet, notwithstanding the extreme and unreasonable partiality and severity of these laws, it is not unusual for the barbarous spirit of slavery to overleap them in its unmerciful punishment of the slave. When the slave commits a high crime, not unfrequently does a furious mob seize him, and hang him up without trial as if he were a mean dog. Calmness and solemnity, which should always characterize the punishment of the greatest criminals in christian countries, give place to the most violent and cruel passions. Judgment, mercy, law, humanity, God and Christianity, are all forgotten in the hasty and insane desire to have the wretched bondman pushed out of the world. And perhaps the crime which has so violently stirred up the community against him was committed under the greatest provocations. His soul may have been writhing under a crushing sense of repeated wrongs. His wife may have been abused before his eyes while he was not permitted to defend her. His daughter may have been dishonored, and he, without appeal for her protection to church or State, compelled to suffer it in silence. And his own back may have been smarting from the maddening lash—and in a moment of frenzy or despair he may have smitten his oppressor to the earth.
And, for this crime he is treated as a prince of criminals, is hung up without trial, or perhaps burned alive!
Our souls have been harrowed up by a circumstance which transpired during the present year (1853) in the State of Mo. Two negro men for the commission of murder were arrested and tied to a tree, near the county seat of Jasper co., a fire was kindled around them, and in the presence of two thousand persons, they were burned to death! No time for reflection or repentance was allowed. Not a word of warning or exhortation was permitted. Even a humane mode of being killed was denied. But they were, in this year, during the Presidency of Pierce, in the State of Missouri, burned without trial!
In 1842 a negro was burned at Union Point, Mississippi. The Natchez Free Trader gives the following account of the horrible work.
“The body was taken and chained to a tree immediately on the bank of the Mississippi, on what is called Union Point. Fagots were then collected, and piled around him to which he appeared quite indifferent. When the work was completed, he was asked what he had to say. He then warned all to take example by him, and asked the prayers of all around; he then called for a drink of water, which was handed to him; he drank it, and said, ‘Now set fire—I am ready to go in peace!’ The torches were lighted and placed in the pile, which soon ignited. He watched unmoved the curling flame, that grew until it began to entwine itself around and feed upon his body: then he sent forth cries of agony painful to the ear, begging some one to blow his brains out; at the same time surging with almost superhuman strength, until the staple with which the chain was fastened to the tree (not being well secured) drew out, and he leaped from the burning pile. At that moment the sharp ringing of several rifles was heard: the body of the negro fell a corpse on the ground. He was picked up by some two or three, and again thrown into the fire and consumed—not a vestige remaining to show that such a being ever existed.”
A colored man was burned in St. Louis, Mo., in 1836, in presence of an immense throng of spectators. The Alton Telegraph gives the following description of the scene.
“All was silent as death while the executioners were piling wood around their victim. He said not a word, until feeling that the flames had seized upon him. He then uttered an awful howl, attempting to sing and pray, then hung his head, and suffered in silence, except in the following instance: After the flames had surrounded their prey, his eyes burnt out of his head, and his mouth seemingly parched to a cinder, some one in the crowd, more compassionate than the rest, proposed to put an end to his misery by shooting him, when it was replied, “that would be of no use, since he was already out of pain.” “No, no,” said the wretch, “I am not. I am suffering as much as ever; shoot me, shoot me.” “No,” said one of the fiends, who was standing about the sacrifice they were roasting, “he shall not be shot. I would sooner slacken the fire, if that would increase his misery.””[5]
It may be said that we have in these illustrations of slavery, exaggerated. But this can not be the case, for we have given the laws and the practice together, and have furnished the testimony of eye-witnesses. And we could bring forward a thousand witnesses from the midst of slavery, whose testimony would confirm all we have said. Yea more; they would declare that half the extent of the evils of this horrible institution are unknown. Hear if you please, a voice from North Carolina—Mr. Swain:
“Let any man of spirit and feeling for a moment cast his thoughts over this land of slavery—think of the nakedness of some, the hungry yearnings of others, the flowing tears and heaving sighs of parting relations, the wailings of woe, the bloody cut of the keen lash, and the frightful scream that rends the very skies—and all this to gratify ambition, lust, pride, avarice, vanity, and other depraved feelings of the human heart. The worst is not generally known. Were all the miseries, the horrors of slavery, to burst at once into view, a peal of seven fold thunder could scarce strike greater alarm.”
Hear the venerable John Rankin, a native and long resident of Tennessee. (See Elliot pp. 225.)
“Many poor slaves are stripped naked, stretched and tied across barrels, or large bags, and tortured with the lash during hours, and even whole days, till their flesh is mangled to the very bones. Others are stripped and hung up by the arms, their feet are tied together, and the end of a heavy piece of timber is put between their legs in order to stretch their bodies, and so prepare them for the torturing lash—and in this situation they are often whipped till their bodies are covered with blood and mangled flesh—and, in order to add the greatest keenness to their sufferings, their wounds are washed with liquid salt! And some of the miserable creatures are permitted to hang in that position till they actually expire; some die under the lash, others linger about for a time, and at length die of their wounds, and many survive, and endure again similar torture. These bloody scenes are constantly exhibiting in every slaveholding country—thousands of whips are every day stained in African blood! Even the poor females are not permitted to escape these shocking cruelties.”
And finally listen dispassionately to the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky, composed of those whose interest it was to present slavery in as favorable a light as possible. (See Elliot pp. 225.)
“This system licenses and produces great cruelty. Mangling, imprisonment, starvation, every species of torture, may be inflicted upon him, [the slave,] and he has no redress. There are now in our whole land two millions of human beings, exposed, defenseless, to every insult, and every injury short of maiming or death, which their fellow-men may choose to inflict. They suffer all that can be inflicted by wanton caprice, by grasping avarice, by brutal lust, by malignant spite, and by insane anger. Their happiness is the sport of every whim, and the prey of every passion that may, occasionally or habitually, infest the master’s bosom. If we could calculate the amount of woe endured by ill-treated slaves, it would overwhelm every compassionate heart—it would move even the obdurate to sympathy. There is also a vast sum of suffering inflicted upon the slave by humane masters, as a punishment for that idleness and misconduct which slavery naturally produces. Brutal stripes and all the varied kinds of personal indignities, are not the only species of cruelty which slavery licenses.”
[CHAPTER VII.]
Slavery and Religion.
“CURSED BE CANAAN.”
Many slaveholders and their apologists have sought to find authority for the “enormity and crime” of slavery, in the Holy Bible. And we are not surprised that the vile oppressor, smarting under the lashings of a guilty conscience, and condemned by the united voice of reason and humanity, should fly for refuge from public scorn and condemnation, to a shelter, however insecure, erected by a perversion of the writings and example of those remarkable men, who fill a prominent place in sacred history. How consoling it must be to the slaveholder, while standing upon the neck of an unresisting brother, and crushing his humanity into the dust with heartless cruelty, to hear from a doctor of divinity that Noah countenanced the enslavement of a part of his posterity, that Abraham was an extensive slaveholder, that Moses incorporated the system into the only government ever instituted by direct authority from Heaven, and that it received, in its very worst form, under the Roman government, the tacit, if not positive sanction of Jesus and the apostles.
My observation sustains me in saying that no class of slaveholders are more pertinacious and incorrigible than the religious class—the scripture-quoting class. If we are to believe them, slaveholding is not a sin PER SE, but of itself is a perfectly innocent thing. The very best of men hold slaves, yea, it is, they tell us, the duty of good men under some circumstances to hold slaves. To be sure THEY do not hold slaves for “gain,” but from motives of pure “charity,” or from stern “necessity.” They and their slaves are ALWAYS in such peculiar cases that emancipation would be impolitic, impracticable, even a sin! Still, from all appearances, they are as careful to keep their slaves from running off as common sinners are—their slaves are fed, clothed, whipped, worked, robbed and used up precisely as are the slaves of the most notorious publicans.
After having seen how slavery originated, and what it is in theory and practice, it may seem useless if not impious to inquire seriously whether a system so manifestly unjust, cruel and diabolical, is sanctioned in the Bible; but the confidence with which slaveholders and their apologists quote it in defense of slavery, and the recklessness with which it is denounced by a class of infidel abolitionists, impel us to enter into this inquiry; and in pursuing it we shall endeavor to examine carefully all the arguments relied upon by the advocates of human bondage. The first passage in order is found in Genesis 9: 25. “And he said, cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.”
It is assumed that this curse was pronounced by divine authority; that the servitude here mentioned is identical with slavery; that the prediction of the oppression of a people justifies their oppressors; and finally, that American slaves are the identical posterity of Canaan.
1. As it respects the authority of this curse, there is a circumstance intimately associated with its utterance which excites a shadow of doubt with regard to its inspiration. “And Noah awoke from his wine” and pronounced this malediction. Is it not possible that these words were the hasty expression of excited feeling and not the solemn enunciation of a divine anathema?
2. But in order to prove the validity of the argument, it must be proved that servitude and slavery are relations of essentially the same character, and this cannot be done. Neither philology nor history affords the slightest proof of the assumption that to be a servant of servants is equivalent to being a slave of slaves.
3. But does the prediction of the oppression of a people justify that oppression? Verily it does not. The Lord said unto Abraham that his seed should be afflicted in a strange land four hundred years. But who will pretend to justify the Egyptian task-masters on the plea that the affliction of Israel had been predicted? The divine prescience sees all things at one glance, and may inspire men to prophesy, but prophecy touches not the moral agency of men. When our Lord was crucified, the “scripture was fulfilled,” but they who crucified him were murderers, nevertheless. Hence, even should we admit that the curse pronounced on Canaan was of divine authority, and that it meant slavery, no stronger apology for slaveholding could be derived therefrom than Egyptian oppressors might have drawn from the words of Jehovah, for the affliction of Israel in Egypt four hundred years. The cases are parallel.
4. But the argument is utterly baseless because American slaves are not the posterity of Canaan, upon whom the curse was pronounced, and hence that anathema affords just as good an apology for the enslavement of Englishmen as colored Americans. Ham had four sons,—Cush, Misriam, Phut, and Canaan, and the curse was directed against Canaan or Canaan’s posterity. But, says one, are not the negroes children of Canaan? By no means. No scholar has ever pretended that Canaan was the progenitor of the negro race.
The sacred penman is very careful to put this matter beyond dispute. He says: “And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth, and the Jubisite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite; and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest unto Sodom and Gomorrah, and Admah and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.” Gen. 10: 15-19. Now these nations and boundaries were all located in Asia, and we have no evidence of the subsequent removal of any of the posterity of Canaan to Africa except it be the founders of Carthage,—a city which was long mistress of the sea, and the proud rival of imperial Rome. The Carthaginians were supposed to be the descendants of Canaan.
This curse, therefore, did not allude to slavery, but servitude; and as it is a mere prediction of what would be the relation of Canaan’s posterity it afforded no apology for the oppression of that posterity;[6] and finally the Africans and colored Americans are not the descendants of Canaan, and hence, the passage can have no application to them; and affords just as good authority for the enslavement of Englishmen, Dutchmen and Frenchmen as negroes.
How absurd is the attempt to take this anathema, construe it to mean and justify chattel slavery, and then stretch it over the posterity, not of Canaan, but of Cush even after the blood of the Cushites (Moses’ wife was a Cushite) has been mingled with the blood of the “first families” of Virginia, and of all the Southern states. A large number of slaves are white—much whiter than their masters and mistresses. The first Bible argument for slavery appears, when weighed,
“Light as a puff of empty air.”
Have slaveholders no better? We will see.
[CHAPTER VIII.]
Slavery and Religion—Continued.
PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE AND SLAVERY.
The next Bible argument for slavery, usually adduced, is founded upon the assumption that the patriarchs were slaveholders, and particular stress is placed upon the example of Abraham, “the friend of God,” who, it is confidently asserted, was an extensive slaveholder.
The Harmony Presbytery, South Carolina, “Resolved, that slavery has existed from the days of those good old slaveholders and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
The Presbytery of Tombecbee said: “In the Bible the state of slavery is clearly recognized. Abraham the friend of God had slaves born in his house and bought with his money.”
Dr. Fuller, in his controversy with Dr. Wayland, assumed that father Abraham was a slaveholder, and that his example was a sufficient warrant for slaveholding in all ages. The same position was taken by Dr. Rice in his debate with Mr. Blanchard. Mr. Fletcher, author of a late voluminous defense of slavery, takes the same position.
It will be perceived that in this argument two things are assumed. 1st That the patriarchs did hold slaves. 2d That the example of a patriarch is conclusive evidence in the case. If it should appear after an examination of the case, that none of the patriarchs owned slaves, or that the example of a patriarch is not conclusive evidence on all moral questions, and may not, in every case, be safely followed, then this argument will also be found wanting.
Now, I assume the position that neither Abraham, nor any other patriarch, ever owned a slave; and as evidence in support of this position submit the following facts and considerations.
1. The Bible does not record such a fact. In no chapter or verse is Abraham, Isaac or Jacob called a slaveholder, slave-driver, slave-trader, or by any other name indicative of such a relation. Nor is any man, or woman in their employ, either in the house or field, or in any way associated with them, called a slave or by any name indicative of that relation.
2. The Bible records in connection with the history of the patriarchs, no circumstance from which slaveholding may be legitimately inferred. Those inseparable concomitants of slavery, the whip, coffle, chain-gang, whipping-post and overseer, are not named in patriarchal history.
3. Some circumstances are recorded from which we obtain presumptive evidence that they did not own slaves. Take for example, an incident in the life of Abraham. He was sitting in his tent door in the cool of the day and saw at a little distance three strangers whom he immediately approached and invited, in the spirit of genuine hospitality, to tarry with him and partake of some refreshments. When he had obtained their consent, he hastened unto the tent to Sarah and requested her to bake some cakes with all possible dispatch, while he should run to the herd and fetch a calf tender and good and have it dressed. The repast was soon provided, the guests were seated around the wholesome meal, and Abraham stood by them under the tree while they ate. Now, I submit, had this patriarch been a slaveholder, he would have ordered “Cuffee” to the flock after the calf, and had Sarah been a mistress of slaves she would have ordered “Dinah” to the kneading trough. In this incident there is no mention of slaves. A “young man” is respectfully noticed without the slightest hint that he was a slave. Abraham and Sarah went about preparing this entertainment precisely as good people do, who attend to their own work, and have no slaves to order around.
4. We have good reasons for believing that chattel slavery had no existence in the world at the time the patriarchs referred to, flourished. Abraham was born only two years after the death of Noah, and when as yet the postdiluvian world was in its infancy, and it is not probable, leaving history out of view, that slavery could have been instituted at so early a period. But the most ancient and reliable history furnishes evidence that for a period after the flood, reaching down far this side the patriarchal age, universal freedom was preserved.[7]
On the authority of Diodorus, Shuckford says, that “the nations planted by Noah and his descendants, had a law against slavery; for no person among them could absolutely lose his freedom and become a bondsman.” (Shuckford’s Connections, Vol. II, pp. 80.)
“Athenaus, a Greek historian of great merit, observes that the Babylonians, Persians, as well as the Greeks, and divers other nations, celebrated annually a sort of Saturnalia, or feast, instituted most probably in commemoration of the original state of freedom, in which men lived before servitude was introduced; and as Moses revived several of Noah’s institutions, so there are appointments in the law to preserve the freedom of the Israelites.”
From these authorities to which others might be added, we conclude that slavery had no existence among the nations which arose immediately after the flood. Noah, it seems was a good democrat, and gave existence to institutions which secured the personal freedom of his descendants; and absolutely prohibited their enslavement. And it also appears that those institutions were for a long period observed, and finally incorporated by Moses into the Law for the preservation of the liberties of the Israelites. Now, Abraham was contemporary with the sons of Noah, and was a governor of one of the very earliest nations alluded to by the historians above quoted; hence it is clear, that slavery had no existence in his day, and consequently he could not have been a slaveholder.
Against this view it may be urged that slavery existed in Egypt in the time of Joseph, that Joseph was sold as a slave, and that the Israelites were slaves when in Egypt. To this objection we answer:
1. The assumption that slavery existed in Egypt in the time of the patriarchs is without foundation. Herodotus, gives a “true and full” account of the ancient Egyptians, specifies with great care the various classes of men, but does not mention slaves. Diodorus, gives a careful statement of the ancient Egyptian constitution, but is silent respecting slavery.
Rollin says: “Husbandmen, shepherds, and artificers formed the three lower classes of lower life in Egypt, but were nevertheless had in very great esteem, particularly husbandmen and shepherds.” We have the best of reasons, therefore, for believing that the wholesome institutions of Noah were preserved for a long time in Egypt. That a system of servitude existed in that country is true, but absolute slavery was not permitted. Parents possessed great authority over their children, and might sell them or their services, for a limited time, but this was not slavery. A year of release was provided for all, so that no one could, as Diodorus observes, “absolutely lose his freedom and become a bondsman!”
2. Joseph was not a slave. He was doubtless sold as a servant for a limited period, and evidently that period had expired before he arose to the high station of Steward of Potipher’s house.
3. The Israelites were not slaves in Egypt. They maintained their nationality, preserved their family relations, owned property, and were not distributed throughout the country, as chattel slaves are. Their servitude was national. Their task masters were appointed by the government, and they labored for the public benefit. They were not domestic slaves.
The position I think is invulnerable, that in the nations which arose and peopled the earth, immediately after the flood, slavery had no existence; and as the patriarchs flourished in that period, the inference is clear that they did not own slaves, and were not slaveholders. Those holy men would hardly be the first to violate the free institutions of Noah, and disgrace the golden age of freedom, by the enslavement of their brothers.
But it is asserted with a show of confidence that the word servant, as applied in the scriptures to a class of persons, means precisely what our word slave means. Hence, when it is said that Abraham had servants, it is assumed that he had SLAVES. Now, although what has been proved, is altogether sufficient to exculpate that good man and all the patriarchs from the charge of slaveholding, we deem it important that the word translated servant be well understood; and with the aid of the best authorities we shall now proceed to make it plain.
The Hebrew words translated servant, service, and servants, are derived from abadh, meaning to labor, to work, to do work. This word occurs in the Hebrew scriptures some hundreds of times, in various forms of the word, and is never rendered slaves. Occasionally, our translators have prefixed the word bond, and made it read bond-servant, but this was done without authority, as precisely the same word is used in the original. The original word is used to denote the following kinds of service: To work for another; Gen. 29: 20. To serve or be servants of a king; 2d Sam., 16: 19. To serve as a soldier; 2d Sam., 2: 12, 13, 15, 30, 31. To serve as an ambassador; 2d Sam., 10: 2, 4. It is applied to a worshipper of the true God; Nehemiah, 1: 10. To a minister; Isaiah, 49: 6. It is also applied to king Rehoboam; 1st Kings, 11: 7, and to the Messiah, Isaiah, 42: 1.[8]
It is used in Gen. 2: 15. And the Lord God took the man, and put him in the garden of Eden to DRESS IT. Adam was put into Eden, not to serve or dress the garden as a SLAVE, but as a man. The same word is used to express the service performed for Laban by Jacob. The relation of Joshua to Moses is expressed by the same word; Ex., 33: 21. It is also used in the fourth commandment. Six days shalt thou labor, etc.
From these examples of the use of the word it is clear that the idea of chattel slavery is not found in it. It is used to express all kinds of service—the service of God, a king, a friend, or an employer.
The word ama, rendered maid-servant, bond-maid, maid, hand-maid, and the word shiphhah with similar renderings, are applied to Hagar, Ruth, Hannah, Abigail, Bilhah and Zilpah, and evidently mean no more than our English word servant in its usual acceptation. Those women were not slaves, they were free women. It has been very properly remarked that if chattel slavery existed among the Hebrews at any time it is not a little surprising that the language contains no word which expresses the relation.
Some have endeavored to force into the word translated servant &c., the idea of slavery because it is said that Abraham had servants “bought with money.” But from the ancient use of the word buy or bought we are not to infer that the persons bought became slaves. Wives were procured in the times of the patriarchs by purchase. Boaz said—“Moreover Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife.” The same word (kanithi) is used here to express the manner in which Boaz obtained his wife, that is used in Gen. to show how a part of Abraham’s servants were obtained. But the beautiful Ruth was not a slave. Jacob purchased his beloved Rachel, and less beloved Leah, but those wives and mothers of the twelve patriarchs could not have been slaves. Had they been chattels, why, then, according to an essential feature of the American slave code, the twelve patriarchs would all have been born in the same condition. Partus sequitur ventrem. A Hebrew might sell himself on a limited time, and he might be bought by a wealthy neighbor, but no one, I believe, has ever pretended that he became a SLAVE thereby. The contract was voluntary. The employer bought the services of his fellow, and paid in advance for the same, not to a third person, but to the servant himself. God is said to have purchased (kanitha) his people; Ps., 75: 2.
Hence from the scriptural use of the word buy, or bought, we are not authorized to infer that the persons purchased became slaves. Such an inference would do violence to the holy word.
The true state of the matter in respect to Abraham, and his case is mainly relied upon, was without a doubt this. Abraham, being a wise, wealthy and good man, gathered around him many devoted friends who, upon his removal to a distant location, desired to accompany him, to receive the benefits of his friendship and counsels, live under his patriarchship, as he was a prince, (see Gen., 23: 6,) and enjoy the protection of his power. Some of these may have been involved in pecuniary embarrassments or obligations of service to other persons, which made it necessary for the benevolent patriarch to release them by paying them in advance for many years of service.
Many of these servants were doubtless converts from idolatry, which had been made in Haran. In Gen. 12: 5, the fact is recorded of the removal of Abraham, Sarai, their effects, and of “the SOULS they had gotten.” This word “gotten” is translated, says Mr. Carothers, from osa, which is used in Ezekiel 18: 31, to express the work of conversion. “Cast away from you all your transgressions, and make you a new heart and a new spirit.” And this rendering of the word “gotten” is confirmed by the Chaldee paraphrase on this passage, which reads thus: “Souls they had instructed or turned from idolatry and taught in the true religion.” “The Hebrews have a tradition,” says Banberg, “that Abraham brought over many men, and Sarah many women from infidelity to the knowledge and worship of the true God; and thus made them spiritually.” A similar mode of expression is used by St. Paul: “I have begotten you through the gospel.” The idea that Abraham and Sarah made slaves of their converts is simply preposterous.
From the foregoing facts and considerations it is perfectly clear to my mind, that the effort to find an apology for slaveholding in patriarchal servitude is a total failure. The charge that the patriarchs held slaves is wholly without foundation,—is a disingenuous attack upon their reputation, and a miserable subterfuge for hard-hearted oppressors, who are seeking an apology or excuse for sins which loudly cry for the vengeance of heaven! Could Father Abraham arise from the dead, visit the South, and there behold thousands of his spiritual children toiling without remuneration, shut out from the blessings of family and home, denied an education and all means of intellectual improvement, driven by the keen lash of a brutal overseer, and then should he hear an appeal made to the patriarchs in justification of this system of unmingled tyranny, he would indignantly repel the appeal as a base calumny!
It is surprising with what confidence the example of the patriarchs is urged in justification of slavery in the absence of all proof or semblance of proof, that they were implicated in this practice. But our surprise is increased when we consider that, even could it be made appear that the patriarchs did hold slaves, this fact of itself, would afford not the slightest apology for slaveholding now. The patriarchs, it is admitted, had a plurality of wives, but their example is not now a sufficient warrant for polygamy. There is not an ecclesiastical court in the United States and territories, if we may except the Mormon, Utah, which would accept the example of the patriarchs as an apology for the man who should stand up before that court with two wives leaning on his arms. The argument therefore appears utterly worthless and shallow from every point of view.
[CHAPTER IX.]
Slavery and Religion—Continued.
LAW OF MOSES AND SLAVERY.
It is claimed by the advocates of human bondage that in the law delivered by Moses for the government of the children of Israel, until the establishment of the kingdom of Christ, slavery is distinctly recognized, carefully regulated, and unequivocally sanctioned; and hence, that it is an institution upon which Jehovah now looks with approbation. We cannot believe, they argue, that it is wrong for christians to practice what the law of Moses permitted or sanctioned. To this argument we reply:—
1. That many things were allowed by the law of Moses which are strictly prohibited by the law of Christ. That law was imperfect in its character, limited in its application, and temporary in its design. It contained a number of statutes which could by no means be incorporated into the laws of a christian state.
Among the things commanded and allowed by the law under consideration, the following may be specified:—
1. It commanded a Hebrew, even though a married man, with wife and children living, to take the childless widow of a deceased brother, and beget children with her; Deut., 25: 5-10.
2. The Hebrews, under certain restrictions, were allowed to make concubines, or wives for a limited time, of women taken in war; Deut. 21: 10-14.
3. A Hebrew who already had a wife, was allowed to take another also; provided he still continued his intercourse with the first as her husband, and treated her kindly and affectionately; Exodus 21: 9-11.
4. By the Mosaic law, the nearest relative of a murdered Hebrew could pursue and slay the murderer, unless he could escape to the city of refuge; and the same permission was given in case of accidental homicide; Num. 35: 9-34.
5. The Israelites were commanded to exterminate the Canaanites, men, women and children; Deut. 9: 12; 20: 16-18.
“Each of these laws, although in its time it was an ameliorating law, designed to take the place of some barbarous abuse, and to be a connecting link by which some higher state of society might be introduced, belongs confessedly to that system which St. Paul says made nothing perfect. They are a part of the commandment which he says was annulled for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, and which, in the time which he wrote, was waxing old, and ready to vanish away.” (Dr. Stowe.)
Now, will any one pretend that it is proper for a christian, having a wife, to take also the wife of a deceased brother? But the law of Moses authorized this as clearly as any one pretends that it authorized slavery. Is it allowable for a christian to take a concubine or marry three or four wives? But the law of Moses allowed this as distinctly as any one believes that it allowed slavery. Would it be right for a christian to pursue a neighbor who had committed accidental or intentional homicide, overtake and slay him? But the law of Moses justified the Jewish man-slayer as plainly as the most ultra defender of slavery maintains that it justified slaveholding. Suppose we admit, for argument sake, that slavery was authorized by the law of Moses, does it follow as a matter of course, that the law of Christ authorizes it? By no means; for we have seen that the former authorized concubinage, polygamy, extermination of the heathen, and summary vengeance upon the unwitting murderer, all of which things are utterly incompatible with the precepts of the latter. And slavery might very properly be placed in the category of those practices allowed by the law, but prohibited by the gospel. Thus the argument for slavery from the law of Moses proves too much, and therefore proves nothing.
2. But if, as is claimed, the Jews were authorized to enslave their fellow men, which we by no means admit, it was by express authority from God, who alone may deprive any of his creatures of the rights with which he has invested them. Express grants were made to the “chosen seed,” as for instance, the forcible occupancy of the land of Canaan, and of the cities thereof. Now those grants were not made to Americans, but to the ancient Israelites, and it is neither modest nor sensible for citizens of the United States to act under a charter which they admit was made to an ancient nation, for a temporary purpose. Let the American slaveholder show the same authority for slaveholding which he maintains the Jew could produce. Has God ever made a grant to Americans to enslave the Africans?
3. Again, the passage mainly relied upon is found in Leviticus, 25: 44-47; in which the Jews are authorized to procure servants of the nations, (not heathen, for heathen is not in the original) round about them. Now if this celebrated passage be at all to the purpose, it is, as Pres. Edwards has said, “a permission to every nation under heaven to buy slaves of the nations round about them; to us, to buy of our Indian neighbors; to them, to buy of us; to the French to buy of the English, and to the English to buy of the French; and so through the world. Thus according to this construction, we have here an institution of a universal slave trade, by which every man may not only become a merchant, but may rightfully become the merchandize itself of this trade, and be bought and sold like a beast.” Who is willing to admit the consequences of this construction?
We might here rest the case, because these three considerations, taken separately, or together, destroy entirely the whole force of the argument for American slavery predicated upon Levitical servitude.
We shall now inquire what kind of servitude was recognized and regulated by the law of Moses. The particular statute upon which the main reliance is placed, by the friends of slavery, and which is supposed to contain the black and bloody charter for the degradation of humanity, is found in Leviticus 25: 44-47, and reads as follows:—
“Both thy bondmen and thy 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 strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they beget 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.”[9]
1. The word slave, it will be observed, does not occur in this passage, nor does bondmen and bondmaids mean anything more than men-servants and women-servants. The word bond, as we have seen, is gratuitously supplied by our translators, and is not in the original; and the word servants means no more than laborers or workers. All kinds of servants are described by the term here found, and hence from its use in this place, it cannot be inferred that the persons referred to were slaves. The passage clearly authorized the procurement of servants from adjoining nations, which was a thing perfectly right in itself, and that is all it did authorize.
2. Nor does the fact that the passage allowed the purchase of servants, prove that the persons purchased were slaves, or became slaves. Irishmen were, many of them, a few years since, “bought servants.” They were sold to pay for their passage to this country, but the whole transaction was voluntary on the part of the “sons of Erin,” and looked to their benefit. Jacob, as we have seen, purchased Leah and Rachel with fourteen years of labor. Our blessed Savior hath purchased us with his own blood. The idea of chattel slavery cannot be associated with the word buy or bought, as used in the sacred writings, without doing great violence to their meaning. The phrase, “of them shall ye buy” may be properly rendered, “of them shall ye get, or obtain servants.” The word translated buy, in the passage before us, is in other places translated “get” or “getteth.” Thus, “He that beareth reproof getteth understanding.” Prov., 15: 32. “He that getteth wisdom, loveth his own soul.” Prov., 19: 8. But the meaning of the word buy, and sell, as applied to the purchase and sale of men, is definitely settled by its use in the context of the passage which we are examining. It is used in verse 47, “if thy brother wax poor and sell himself” etc. In verse 39, the reading is, “and be sold.” These passages are intended to convey an idea of the same transaction, and that transaction was nothing more nor less than the voluntary sale of a poor man to a rich one, not as a slave, but as a servant. The sale was made, and the money was received by the servant who sold himself, with which he released himself and family from pecuniary embarrassment. In this sale and purchase of a man, the idea of slavery is utterly excluded. Now is it probable that the words buy, and sell, in this same chapter, when applied to foreign servants, were used in a totally different sense? To suppose this would be to charge Moses, as Wm. Jay observes, with a fraudulent intent to render the meaning of his law doubtful and unintelligible.
3. Considerable stress is placed upon the phrase, “shall be of the heathen,” as if heathenism was a crime to be punished with a still deeper degradation than idolatry can produce. “The word heathen,” says Mr. Jay, “is gratuitously inserted by our translators instead of nations, the meaning of the original.”
4. Permission was also given for the purchase of the “children of the strangers.” “‘Children of the strangers’ is an orientalism, for strangers, as ‘children of the East,’ ‘children of the Province,’ ‘children of the Ethiopians.’ Hence, the Jews, instead of buying little boys and girls of their parents, were to buy foreigners residing in the country; and not only foreigners, but their descendants, natives of Palestine.” (Jay.)
5. “They shall be your bondmen forever.” In this phrase is supposed to be found a charter for perpetual, hereditary, hopeless bondage. Mr. Jay very justly remarks upon it as follows: “The preconceived opinions of the translators tempted them to give such a color to this sentence as best accorded with their proslavery theory. Hence this strong expression in the text, while in the margin the literal translation is honestly given, “Ye shall serve yourselves with them forever.” Not a word about bondmen, but merely an unlimited permission, as to time, to use or employ foreigners or strangers.”
The proslavery construction renders the permission absurd, because in the first place it would be impossible for any one man literally to be a bondman forever, unless servitude could be continued in heaven or hell. And, in the next place, it could not continue in the same person in Israel beyond the great jubilee.
Now when this passage in Leviticus 25, is stripped of all the proslavery glosses of the translators, the following is, as the excellent writer just quoted observes, its plain and obvious meaning:—“You may buy of themselves, for servants, men and women who are natives of the adjoining countries, just as you have already been authorized to buy your own countrymen for servants. You may also buy, for servants, strangers residing among you, and their descendants; and your children after you may do the same. You may always employ them as servants.”
The servitude permitted by the law of Moses has been most grossly misrepresented, and misunderstood. It was not an institution looking mainly to the advantage of the rich and powerful, while it crushed the poor and defenseless into the dust, disregarding their interests and their sorrows, but it was a benificent arrangement intended to relieve the unfortunate and open a door of hope to the Gentile inquirer of the way to Zion. Now observe carefully the following facts:—
1. Servants were not kidnapped or stolen from the surrounding nations. The stealing of a man was made a capital offense. He that stealeth a man and (or it should be) selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Ex. 21: 16. Now, as all the slaves in America have been stolen, those who stole them, and those who hold them, are worthy of death according to the law of Moses.
2. All the servants obtained by the Jews from neighboring nations were voluntary servants. This is proved in the following way. 1. Foreign servants, and native Hebrew servants were obtained in the same manner. Native Hebrews became servants (except in cases of crime) by voluntary contract. 2. Obedience to the law of Moses was a condition of servitude in the Jewish state. An idolater was not allowed to remain in the land. And a bought servant was obliged to renounce idolatry, receive the rite of circumcision, and in all things conform to the law of Moses, as his master was required to do. Gen. 17: 10-15. Ex. 23: 15-20. Deut. 16: 10-18. All were required to enter into the most solemn religious covenant. “Ye stand this day, all of you, before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water; that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day.” Deut. 29. But conformity to the law of Moses was voluntary. We cannot conceive that a Jew was allowed to buy a heathen servant against his will, tie him, inflict upon him the rite of circumcision, and then compel him to observe the great feasts ordained by the law, and, otherwise conform to the Jewish religion. Hence the acceptance of a place as a servant in a Jewish family was a matter of choice. 3. Servants were not obliged to remain with their masters. If they saw proper to change their situation, they had a perfect right to do so, just as laborers now have, and there was no fugitive slave law to prevent them from so doing. “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.” Deut. 23: 15, 16. From these facts, the conclusion is irresistible that servitude was not forced upon a foreigner, but voluntarily accepted by him, and that his continuance in that relation was voluntary. How great the contrast between this system and American slavery which utterly disregards the will of slaves.
3. Foreign servants were to be treated in all respects precisely as native Hebrew servants were to be treated. “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.” Lev. 24: 22.
4. Ample provisions were made for the religious improvement of servants of all classes and especially foreign servants. They were to observe the sabbath, go up with their masters to the three great annual feasts celebrated at Jerusalem, listen to the reading of the law, and in short enjoy all the advantages of the Jewish religion. Mr. Barnes estimates that in a period of fifty years, not less than twenty three were appropriated to the exclusive benefit of servants, during which time their whole attention might be devoted to the interests of their souls. Does not this indicate that the great design of the employment of foreign servants was religious? Is there the least similarity between this system of servitude and American slavery?
5. Special provisions were made to secure the kind treatment of all foreigners, foreign servants of course included. “Thou shalt not vex a stranger nor oppress him.” “Thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger.” “Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger.” “The Lord your God regardeth not persons. Love ye therefore the stranger.” But does not American slavery vex and oppress the stranger and pervert his judgment? The wide world cannot produce a class of persons who are, or ever have been oppressed, if American slaves are not. The word oppression is too feeble to express the tyranny suffered by the strangers in our land.
6. Servants under the law of Moses could not be sold. No permission was given for the sale of servants. They could not be taken for the payment of debts, or as pledges, or presents. They never were sold or given away. The reason of this is found in the fact that they were not chattels,—they were recognized as men, and had made a contract for service which their masters could not at pleasure annul. We have seen that the trade in slaves is an extensive and lucrative business.
7. The Hebrew law regarded servants as naturally equal to their masters, and hence, they were allowed to marry into their master’s family, and inherit, under some circumstances, their master’s property. Deut. 21: 10-14. A slave is not regarded as a man, can own nothing, and inherit nothing. What a contrast! American slavery, and Hebrew servitude seem to be erected upon totally different foundations.
8. At stated periods the mild form of servitude instituted by the law of Moses expired. A Hebrew who became a servant could not be required to continue in that relation more than six years. And every fiftieth year was a grand Jubilee, at the commencement of which liberty was proclaimed throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof. Lev. 25: 10, 11. Contracts for service, under any circumstances, could not hold beyond that great jubilee. It was a glorious institution, and a type of the proclamation of the gospel. But American slavery knows no joyful jubilee! For three hundred years no proclamation of freedom has been made throughout all this land unto all the inhabitants thereof. No, generation after generation of slaves goes down to their graves in despair! Slavery is without a jubilee.
9. The grand design of the introduction of foreign servants into the Jewish state was their salvation. From a careful examination of this whole subject, we are fully satisfied that the 25th chapter of Lev. contains, as Mr. Smith has said, “the constitution of Heaven’s first Missionary society, by which a door of mercy and salvation was opened to the heathen, through which they could obtain access to the altar of God, find mercy and live.”
It will be observed that a foreigner could obtain a permanent residence in Israel in but two ways,—1st By becoming a servant in a Jewish family, and, 2d By purchasing a house in a walled city. Now, when in connection with these facts, we consider that to the Jews were committed the “lively oracles;” that the only temple of God on earth was erected on Mt. Moriah; that the divinely appointed priesthood and sacrifices were in Jerusalem; and also that a renunciation of idolatry and hearty acceptance of the God and religion of the bible was absolutely required of those foreigners who desired to become servants; that when they did become servants they were blessed with all the precious privileges of the Jewish religion, and after a few years, became, with their families, adopted members of the Jewish state, having all the rights, immunities and honors of the chosen people of God; I say, when all these facts are impartially weighed, they convince us that the end of the provision alluded to for the admission of foreign servants was religious—the salvation of those servants.
And history affords a powerful argument in support of this position. What was the practical operation of the law of Moses in relation to foreign servants? If the pro-slavery view of that law be correct, then history would record the fact that the commonwealth of Israel was a slaveholding commonwealth. It would state that the Jews traded in men, and that this traffic was important. We should read of poor, ignorant, chained idolaters traveling in mournful procession to a great slave pen at Jerusalem, situated under the shadow, perhaps of the temple of God, and from thence into every part of the land. And when our Savior appeared, he would have come into contact with those wretched slaves, and would have said something about them. Do we find these facts in history? No, not one of them. Jerusalem, thank God, was a free city. Judea a free state. Foreigners were employed from age to age, as servants, but as was contemplated, they embraced the religion of God, became adopted citizens and were fully identified with the commonwealth of Israel. “After circumcision they were,” as Jahn says, “recorded among the Hebrews,” and after the jubilee they enjoyed all the immunities of the children of Abraham. Such was the intention, and such the results of Levitical servitude. Between that system and American slavery there is scarcely any thing in common. Slavery originated in piracy, is a system of savage tyranny, degrading to the intellect, destructive of morality, blasting to hope and happiness, and tending to barbarism and crime. Servitude under the law of Moses, originated in a benevolent desire to open a door of hope to the heathen, was kind and just in its requirements, guarding with extreme jealousy the interest of servants, and admirably calculated to lead their minds to morality, virtue and the knowledge of God. Slavery, therefore, can find no sanction in the law of Moses. Why, if that law were applied to American slavery it would abolish it. Compel slaveholders to use their slaves as the law of Moses required servants to be used, and you will soon see an end of slavery.
[CHAPTER X.]
Slavery and Religion—Continued.
NEW TESTAMENT AND SLAVERY.
Our Lord’s New Testament is the bulwark of human freedom. Its great, broad, solid truths constitute an impregnable foundation for a temple of liberty capacious enough to hold the entire human race. This is the last book in the world to search in order to find any thing favorable to oppression; and oppressors have usually preferred to “burrow amid the types and shadows of the ancient economy.” An effort has been made, however, to wrest a sanction for the abomination of slavery out of this last and best revelation from heaven, and to convert some passages found in the writings of the apostles into chains and fetters to bind in hopeless bondage those very persons for whom Christ died.
We will quote the passages usually adduced to prove that it is the duty of some men to be slaves, and of others to be slaveholders.
“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” Eph. 6: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.” Col. 3: 22. “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.” 1st Tim. 6: 1, 2. “Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.” Titus, 2: 9, 10. “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” Col. 4: 1.
We will inquire in the first place whether these passages teach that it is the duty of some persons to be slaves. And it may be remarked that if a class of human beings ought to sustain this horrible relation, the law requiring them to do so, should be written in the plainest possible manner. If any one should claim me and my family as slaves, upon a pretense that God had authorized our enslavement, I would demand a warrant for so terrible a degradation, which no reasonable man could question. Let us see whether the scriptures cited prove unquestionably that to live in a state of slavery is a duty which God requires.
1. It will be seen at a glance that there is not a word said about slaves in any of these quotations. The word slave or slaves is not once used! And yet these passages, inculcating the duties of servants, have been rung in the ears of our poor slaves for the last three hundred years, by hypocritical preachers and slaveholders, as if heaven were chiefly interested and delighted in the perpetuation of an institution which degrades millions of men to a point as low as manhood can possibly descend. The whole gospel preached to slaves is mixed up with this satanic perversion. Even the song of angels announcing “peace on earth and good will to men,” is accompanied to the ear of the American bondman, with the base, coarse corruption,—“Slaves, obey your masters.”
2. The word servants, used in these scriptures, is not synonymous with the word slaves, as the preachers of oppression assume. The word andrapodon means slave, but that word, the learned tell us, does not occur in the sacred writings. The word douloi, used in the above quotations, and translated servants, means precisely what our English word servants means, as that word is understood in free countries. “Our English word servant,” says a good authority, “is an exact translation of the Greek word doulos. And to translate it into the definite word slave is a gross violation of the original. Our translators of the scriptures have uniformly translated the word doulos into the word servant, never into the word slave, and for the reason that it never means slave. The apostles addressed servants in general, but never slaves in particular; and therefore the term slave (andrapodon) is not found in apostolic writings.”
The word doulos occurs in the New Testament one hundred and twenty two times,[10] and in no case has it been translated slave. To show the utter fallacy of the assumption that it is synonymous with slave, permit us to supply slave in a few passages where doulos occurs, instead of servant, for if slave and servant mean the same thing, they may be used interchangeably without violating the sense. “Paul and Timotheus the slaves of Jesus Christ.” “These are the slaves of the Most High God which do show unto us the way of salvation.” “And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God all ye his slaves, and ye that fear him small and great.” “I am thy fellow slave.” We might extend these quotations indefinitely, but a sufficient number have been given to show the absurdity of the assumption that the words servant and slave describe the same relation. The pro-slavery rendering of doulos, would make slaves of all the redeemed, and of the holy angels, and would, as Mr. Smith remarks, extend the territory of slavery over heaven itself.
3. The phrase “servants under the yoke” means no more than obligation to perform service according to agreement or contract. He who had an engagement with an unbelieving master should perform his contract, or fulfill his obligation with scrupulous fidelity in order that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. The word “yoke” does not necessarily imply slavery. Our Savior said “take my yoke upon you,” but certainly he did not invite any one to become a slave. The word yoke is used in the scriptures to represent the ceremonial law; “dominion of Jacob over Esau, in the matter of his father’s blessing;” political subjugation of the Israelites; the authority of king David over his subjects, etc., etc.; but not in a single passage in the scriptures, unless it be in 1st Tim. 6: 1, does it describe the state of a domestic slave, and the assumption that it means slave in this place is altogether without proof to sustain it.
4. There is one passage in the New Testament addressed to servants which has not yet been quoted. “Servants be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.” 1st Pet. 2: 18, 19. In this passage doulos does not occur, but oiketes, which some suppose, means slave. But of this evidence is wanting. The same word is used four times only in the New Testament, and is, in no case, translated slave. (See Luke 16: 13. Acts 10: 7. Rom. 14: 4. 1st Pet. as above.) In one place it is rendered household-servant, and it seems to be used to distinguish house-servants from others. “The word comes from oikos, a house.”[11]
5. If the sacred writers above quoted had intended to address slaves, they would, in the first place, have done so plainly by calling them slaves. In the second place the directions would have been applicable to persons in a state of slavery. As to the terms used in the directions, we have seen that they do not apply properly to slaves; and the directions themselves afford proof that they were given to persons who were not chattel slaves. The advice and exhortations imply freedom from absolute authority and a power of choice not compatible with slavery. They are exhorted to perform service “As the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.” That is, they were to be actuated by the highest motives, and were not to toil as the servants of men, but of God. Again, they are advised not to “DESPISE” their masters. Such directions have no pertinence, if addressed to human chattels. To whom then were they addressed? We answer, to voluntary laborers or servants who received a compensation for their work. The relations of servant and master or laborer and employer are necessary, legitimate and honorable relations. All men have not the skill to acquire or manage capital, and capital is essential to the accomplishment of great enterprises, to the march of improvement, and the progress of civilization. Capital invested in railroads, canals, machinery, factories, ships, merchandise, etc., requires many laborers to manage it; and the directions we are considering require that those laborers be honest, faithful, pleasant, and industrious in the discharge of the duties they engage to perform. And even though an employer be not a very good man, as is often the case with men of capital, christian servants or laborers are instructed to attend to their duties in the fear of God and in a manner that will recommend to those employers the religion which they profess. Yea, though servants have an engagement with a hard-hearted, overbearing, abusive heathen master, the apostles would have them perform their part, with the utmost fidelity, suffering “wrongfully” if need be, for the sake of Christ. These directions are judicious, and their observance would work to the advantage of laborers in all countries.
Now it is clear that those scriptures do not teach unquestionably that it is the duty of some persons to be slaves. If the apostles had said, “slaves be obedient to your masters for you are their property and they have a right to you and all you can earn, because you are property,” then the matter would have been settled. Then we should admit that some men ought to be slaves, but upon the heels of this admission would follow a question very difficult to settle viz: Who is to obey the command to be a slave? How is it to be determined who shall become a human chattel and who the owner of said chattel?
But the assertion that God requires men to be slaves is a wicked assertion. It charges God with folly and inconsistency. He desires the elevation of man, but slavery brutalizes him. He encourages the enlightenment of the mind and the expansion of the understanding, but slavery darkens the mind and enchains the understanding. God cannot be pleased with the ignorance, stupor, injustice and servile wretchedness which are necessary to the very existence of slavery, and hence he can not make it the duty of any man to be a slave, for this would be the same as to make it his duty to be stupid, ignorant and wretched. No, God does not will that any man or woman should be a slave. Man was made in the image of God’s independence and sovereignty. The instinct of freedom is strong in his bosom. It has resisted oppression in all ages, and it will resist it, with God on its side, until it shall triumph!
We will now inquire whether the apostolic addresses to masters authorize some men to sustain the relation of slaveholders. It should be observed that there are but two places in the New Testament in which the duties of masters are pointed out. Permit us to repeat those duties. “And ye masters do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your master also is in heaven.” “Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven.”
Is it possible that from these words men will take license to seize their fellows and convert them into property; despoil them of all their rights; deny them an education; banish them from courts of justice; break up their homes; take their wages without compensation; drive them in chain-gangs from state to state, and whip, beat, and abuse them until they perish from the earth? Yes, it is possible. This has been done. “Was there ever,” said Dr. Wayland, “such a moral superstructure raised on such a foundation? * * If the religion of Christ allows such a license from such precepts as these, the New Testament would be the greatest curse that ever was inflicted on our race.” We remark
1. In these directions there is not the slightest intimation that the masters addressed were slaveholders and that the servants in their employ were slaves. The term slaveholders (andrapodistais,) is not used in the above passages, and this term is only once found in the apostolic writings.[12] It is found in the following text: “Knowing this that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for andrapodistais, (slaveholders or menstealers) for liars, etc.” 1st Tim. 1: 9, 10.
And it is not only a fact that slaveholders are not addressed in these passages, but the directions given are such as no slaveholder in the world can observe. How can a slaveholder give unto a slave that which is just and equal? The slave can own nothing, will nothing, inherit nothing, and hence it is impossible, in the very nature of the case, for his owner to give him a just compensation for his labor. And the slave has a just right to himself to liberty and the very first honest and enlightened effort of a slaveholder to give to his slave that which is just and equal would result in his emancipation! Justice and equality are incompatible with slaveholding. Injustice and inequality are its essential principles. Let us hear Mrs. Stowe’s comment on what Christian legislators have seemed to consider just and equal when making laws for slaves:—
“First, they commence by declaring that their brother shall no longer be considered as a person, but deemed, sold, taken, and reputed, as a chattel personal.—This is “just and equal!”
This being the fundamental principle of the system, the following are specified as its consequences:
1. That he shall have no right to hold property of any kind, under any circumstances.—Just and equal!
2. That he shall have no power to contract a legal marriage, or claim any woman in particular for his wife.—Just and equal!
3. That he shall have no right to his children, either to protect, restrain, guide or educate.—Just and equal!
4. That the power of his master over him shall be ABSOLUTE, without any possibility of appeal or redress in consequence of any injury whatever.
To secure this, they enact that he shall not be able to enter suit in any court for any cause.—Just and equal!
That he shall not be allowed to bear testimony in any court where any white person is concerned.—Just and equal!
That the owner of a servant, for “malicious, cruel, and excessive beating of his slave, cannot be indicted.”—Just and equal!
It is further decided, that by no indirect mode of suit, through a guardian, shall a slave obtain redress for ill-treatment. (Dorothea v. Coquillon et al, 9 Martin La. Rep. 350.)—Just and equal!
5. It is decided that the slave shall not only have no legal redress for injuries inflicted by his master, but shall have no redress for those inflicted by any other person, unless the injury impair his property value.—Just and equal!
Under this head it is distinctly asserted as follows:
There can be no offence against the peace of the state, by the mere beating of a slave, unaccompanied by any circumstances of cruelty, or an intent to kill and murder. The peace of the state is not thereby broken.” (State v. Manner, 2 Hill’s Rep. S. C.)—Just and equal!
If a slave strike a white, he is to be condemned to death; but if a master kill his slave by torture, no white witnesses being present, he may clear himself by his own oath. (Louisiana.)—Just and equal!
The law decrees fine and imprisonment to the person who shall release the servant of another from the torture of the iron collar. (Louisiana.)—Just and equal!
It decrees a much smaller fine, without imprisonment, to the man who shall torture him with red-hot irons, cut out his tongue, put out his eyes, and scald or maim him. (Ibid.)—Just and equal!
It decrees the same punishment to him who teaches him to write as to him who puts out his eyes.—Just and equal!
As it might be expected that only very ignorant and brutal people could be kept in a condition like this, especially in a country where every book and every newspaper are full of dissertations on the rights of man, they therefore enact laws that neither he nor his children to all generations, shall learn to read and write.—Just and equal!
And as, if allowed to meet for religious worship, they might concert some plan of escape or redress, they enact that “no congregation of negroes, under pretence of divine worship, shall assemble themselves; and that every slave found at such meetings shall be immediately corrected without trial, by receiving on the bare back twenty-five stripes with a whip, switch or cowskin.” (Law of Georgia, Prince’s Digest, p. 447.)—Just and equal!
Though the servant is thus kept in ignorance, nevertheless in his ignorance he is punished more severely for the same crimes than freemen.—Just and equal!
By way of protecting him from over-work, they enact that he shall not labor more than five hours longer than convicts at hard labor in a penitentiary!
They also enact that the master or overseer, not the slave, shall decide when he is too sick to work.—Just and equal!
If any master, compassionating this condition of the slave, desires to better it, the law takes it out of his power, by the following decisions:
1. That all his earnings shall belong to his master, notwithstanding his master’s promise to the contrary; thus making him liable for his master’s debts.—Just and equal!
2. That if his master allow him to keep cattle for his own use, it shall be lawful for any man to take them away, and enjoy half the profits of the seizure.—Just and equal!
3. If his master sets him free, he shall be taken up and sold again.—Just and equal!
If any man or woman runs away from this state of things, and, after proclamation made, does not return, any two justices of the peace may declare them outlawed, and give permission to any person in the community to kill then by any ways or means they think fit.—Just and equal!”
(See Key, pp. 241.)
If slaveholding is an illustration of what St. Paul meant by justice and equality, who can tell what is injustice and inequality? Let it be understood that a slaveholder cannot give to a slave, while he holds him as a slave, that which is just and equal, because the greatest injustice and inequality enters into the very nature of the relation of slaveholder. Could a man be a just robber or an honest thief? No, because injustice and dishonesty enter necessarily into the business of robbing and stealing. Even so is it impossible for justice and equality to enter into slaveholding, because, it is in its very nature, robbery, theft, extortion, oppression, and a complication of almost all villainies.
It is clear from the examination of all the passages in the New Testament relating to masters and servants, that those masters were not slaveholders and that those servants were not slaves.
But it will be asked did not slavery exist in the apostles’ days? We answer it did exist. The Roman government tolerated chattel slavery. Why then did not the apostles regulate it by prescribing the duties of slaveholders and slaves? It has been assumed, and justly too, that “slavery no more than murder can be regulated. That which is essentially and eternally wrong has nothing in it on which the claim of morality can rest. Morality requires its destruction, not its regulation.”[13] The law of God does not point out the duties of liars, adulterers and thieves, because as such, they can have no duties. So God did not attempt to regulate Roman slavery which was a most vile and crushing despotism. He did not intend that SLAVERY should be continued, and hence it was not to be regulated but destroyed. We have no evidence in the above passages that SLAVEHOLDERS were admitted into the church of Jesus Christ by the apostles.
Slaveholders and the upholders of the infamous Fugitive Slave Law, lay the case of Onesimus to their consciences as a healing unction when dogging down the fugitive slave. In their blindness they assume that Philemon was a slaveholder, Onesimus a slave, and St. Paul a slave-catcher. But not a word of this is true.
1. Onesimus was a SERVANT and not a SLAVE, and Philemon was not a SLAVEHOLDER. The assumption that the one was a slave and the other a slave-owner is altogether without support.
2. Onesimus was not forcibly sent back. St. Paul did not arrest him, and send him in chains to Philemon, charging the expense to the government.
3. He was not sent back as a servant, much less a slave. How then? Why as a “brother beloved.” “Thou therefore receive him as mine own bowels— * * receive him as myself.” “If he oweth thee ought put that on mine account.” These directions are wholly inconsistent with the idea of slavery. If Onesimus was the property of Philemon, Paul knew that he owed the service of his whole life. But Onesimus was no slave. Had he been a slave Paul would have said, “Receive him not as a slave (andrapodon) but above a slave,” instead of saying, “not as a servant (doulos) but above a servant.” Onesimus was a relative of Philemon, probably a natural brother,—brother “in the flesh;” as may be inferred from Philem., verse 16. He was undoubtedly a young man of great promise, and was not only entrusted with the epistle of Paul to Philemon, but jointly with Tychicus was the bearer of the venerable apostle’s letter to the church at Colosse. On the authority of Calmet, and indeed of Ignatius, it is affirmed that he succeeded Timothy as bishop of Ephesus.
They who affirm that the New Testament writers sanctioned Roman slavery, seem not to be aware of the serious imputation they cast upon that book and its authors. Look at that awful despotism, that you may understand what a savage, scaly, bloody-mouthed beast was welcomed into the church and baptized with a Christian baptism, if we may believe the advocates of human bondage.
1. “The (Roman) slave had no protection against the avarice, rage, or lust of the master, whose authority was founded in absolute property; and the bondman was viewed less as a human being subject to arbitrary dominion, than as an inferior animal, dependent wholly on the will of his overseer.[14]
2. “He might kill, mutilate or torture his slaves for any or no offence; he might force them to become gladiators or prostitutes.
3. “The temporary unions of male with female slaves were formed and dissolved at his command; families and friends were separated when he pleased.
4. “Slaves could have no property but by the sufferance of their masters.
5. “While slaves turned the handmill they were generally chained, and had a broad wooden collar to prevent them from eating the grain.
6. “The runaway when taken was severely punished, * * * sometimes with crucifixion, amputation of a foot, or by being sent to fight as a gladiator with wild beasts; but most frequently by being branded on the brow with letters indicative of his crime.
7. “By a decree passed by the Senate, if a master was murdered when his slaves might possibly have aided him, all his household within reach were held as implicated and deserving of death.”
Is it possible that the holy apostles gave their sanction to a system based on such laws?
But all the fundamental principles of revealed religion are against slavery.
1. The character of god.—God is just and cannot favor a system which disregards all the principles of justice. But slavery outrages every principle of justice: therefore God must be opposed to slavery. God is impartial,—no respecter of persons, and he cannot be favorable to a system which is based upon partiality. But slavery is a system of superlative partiality: hence God is opposed to slavery. God is love,—and love wills the highest happiness of the intelligent universe, and the removal of every obstruction to the progress of men to that happiness. But slavery obstructs that progress. It is a barbarizing system, necessarily involving millions of men in ignorance, crime and misery: therefore God must will its extirpation. All the divine attributes are hostile to slavery. “Thus saith the Lord, execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor.” “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed; judge the fatherless; plead for the widow.”
2. The common origin of man.—The unity of the human race is admitted by all scientific men, and the bible plainly teaches us that “out of one blood hath God made all nations to dwell upon the face of the earth.” Whatever difference of feature, color, intellect or stature, may be found in the various parts of the globe, is attributable to manners, climate, education, and the pleasure the Creator has in variety. Every human being is a man, possessing all the rights of a man. All men are brothers, born into the world on a common level. Hence one man cannot claim his brother and his brother’s family without committing an outrageous insult. If the right to claim belongs to any, it belongs to all, and now whose right shall hold? We say if the right to enslave belongs to any it belongs to all, and how is it to be determined who will sink from the right to own slaves to the condition of a SLAVE? Must the strong reduce to slavery the weak, and thus make might the arbiter? Such a conclusion would be contrary to the plainest dictates of reason. If men have a common parentage, and are brothers, they inherit common rights, and those rights ought to be respected. That system which authorizes one part of the common family of man to plunder another part of their dearest rights—of all their rights, is a wrong system. But slavery authorizes this very thing: therefore slavery is wrong.
3. Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of all.—Jesus is the second Adam, and sustains a relation to the human family co-extensive with the first Adam. He is the Mediator, High Priest and Elder Brother of every child of man. All have been purchased with a priceless offering; and hence the claims of Christ are paramount to all other claims, and no one can rightfully become the owner of a fellow-being, unless Christ as Creator and Redeemer first relinquish his claim. A system which should attempt forcibly, and without divine permission, to seize upon the Saviour’s purchase, would be robbery—a robbery of God. But slavery does seize upon the purchase of a Saviour’s blood without divine permission: therefore slavery is robbery—robbery of God.
4. The Moral Precepts of Christianity.—The moral precepts of Christianity condemn slavery. Take for example the golden rule—“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them.” Can any slaveholder obey this precept? If that wealthy planter who stands at the head of a large family, were a slave with all his household, what course would he have his owner pursue? Would he not wish him to grant a deed of immediate manumission to all his family and to himself? Would he not urge the matter as one of immense importance? Is it possible that he could desire to be deprived of liberty, education, permanent family connections, and of the proceeds of his toil? Could any sane man wish to have his sons and daughters grow up in the stupor, ignorance, and miseries of slavery? No, it is not possible. Every sound-minded man would regard the subjugation of himself and family to slavery as a dreadful calamity, and would consider the man who should hold them in that condition as an unfeeling, inhuman tyrant.—Therefore no sound-minded man can hold a slave without violating the golden rule—without doing unto others as he would not have others do to him.
5. The commandments are all against slavery. “Honor thy father and thy mother.” But slavery places the master between the child and the parent, and makes it impossible for the child practically to obey this command, in the performance of those duties which cheer the hearts and lighten the burdens of parents, especially in old age. “Thou shalt not kill.” But slavery authorizes in many cases the killing of slaves. “In North Carolina, any person may lawfully kill a slave who has been outlawed by running away or lurking in the swamps.” “By a law of South Carolina, a slave endeavoring to entice another slave to run away, if provisions, etc., be prepared to aid in such running away, shall be punished with death.” “Another law of the same State, provides that if a slave when absent from the plantation, refuse to be examined by any white person, such white person may seize and chastise him; and if the slave shall strike such person, he may be lawfully killed.”—“Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But female slaves are compelled to commit adultery. The law places them wholly within the power of their masters and overseers, and they dare not, they cannot resist their demands. “Thou shalt not steal.” But slavery exists by theft. Every slave is a stolen man. Every slaveholder is a man-stealer. The slave was stolen from Africa, or stolen from his rightful owner, himself, in America. No sophistry can make it plausible that the African slave trade is piracy, and that the perpetuation of slavery is an innocent business. It is theft as clearly to go to the negro hut in Virginia and steal a babe as to go to a hut in Africa and do the same deed. Certainly a child born in our happy Republic is as free in the sight of God as one born under the rule of the King of Dahomey! “All are created free,” hence the holding of any one as a slave is theft persevered in. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” But slavery does bear false witness against the slave, who is our neighbor. It denies his natural equality, his right to liberty, property—in short, his manhood. This is all as false as false can be. “Thou shalt not covet.” But slavery covets not only a man’s property, but the man himself. We see that slavery violates every commandment of the second table of the Decalogue, and indeed violates every precept of the first table, as might readily be shown.
It is clear that slavery receives no sanction from the curse pronounced upon Canaan, from patriarchal servitude, from the law of Moses, nor from the law of Christ. In the light of the divine word it appears a gigantic barbarism, full of hate to the human brotherhood. It annuls the law of God respecting the family and society. It obstructs the progress of education and religion. It is condemned by the whole spirit of revealed religion. Only a devil could pray for its perpetuation and extension. It is not only a sin, but a combination of stupendous sins—“the sum of all villainies,” in the language of Wesley, “an enormity and a crime, for which perdition has scarcely an adequate punishment,” in the language of Clarke. “Slavery,” said the celebrated Jabez Bunting, “is always wrong, essentially, eternally, incurably wrong.”
[CHAPTER XI.]
American Churches and Slavery.
THE POSITION THEY OCCUPY.
The christian church ought to be a faithful exponent of the benevolent spirit and doctrines of Jesus Christ. Liberty, truth and humanity, though insulted, betrayed and proscribed every where else, should find within its sacred enclosures a welcome, a refuge and a stronghold. Its watchmen ought to be faithful men, uninfluenced by flattery, uncorrupted by gold, unawed by the popular will. The church ought to be the most independent body on earth. Standing as it does upon the Eternal Rock, holding the promise of successful resistance against the “gates of hell,” and of certain triumph over all the powers of darkness, the oppressor ought to know that he could not intimidate it by menace, silence its witnesses, win its smiles, or by any means be permitted to set his unhallowed feet within its pale. The church ought to be a terror to slaveholders; and although usage, prejudice, pride, passion, wealth, literature, and the selfish interests of men should all be combined against the oppressed, they should be certain of an unswerving and powerful friend and advocate in the church.
We say such should be the acknowledged and indisputable character and conduct of that body popularly known as the church, because then it would be a faithful exponent of the divine philanthropy of Jesus, of his “good will to men,”—then it would be precisely what the church was when it acknowledged no law superior to the will of God.
We propose now to ascertain the position of the American churches in relation to the slavery question. The most of them have been compelled to take some action on this exciting subject. We shall notice, more especially, the late action of various denominations, both for and against slavery, that the reader may know precisely where each branch of the Protestant churches of this country, may be found. We do not deem it necessary to exhibit the relation of the Catholic church to slavery. We may remark here, however, by the way, that this church, if it be proper to call it a church, is soundly pro-slavery, and is, in America, as it is everywhere else, a staunch advocate of oppression. Few Protestant churches excel the Catholic in slaveholding.