The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 4 of 4

by American Anti-Slavery Society

Lay such hints as have now been suggested together; let it be remembered, that slavery was inconsistent with the Mosaic economy; that John the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no reference "to the yoke" which, had it been before him, he would, like Isaiah, have condemned; that the Savior, while he took the part of the poor and sympathized with the oppressed, was evidently spared the pain of witnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence, of the chattel principle, that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever they might be, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, "to labor, working with their hands;" and that where reference was had to the most menial employments, in families, they were described as carried on by hired servants; and the question of slavery "in Judea," so far as the seed of Abraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of. With every phase and form of society among them slavery was inconsistent.

The position which, in the article so often referred to in this paper, the Princeton professor takes, is sufficiently remarkable. Northern abolitionists he saw in an earnest struggle with southern slaveholders. The present welfare and future happiness of myriads of the human family were at stake in this contest. In the heat of the battle, he throws himself between the belligerent powers. He gives the abolitionists to understand, that they are quite mistaken in the character of the objections they have set themselves so openly and sternly against. Slaveholding is not, as they suppose, contrary to the law of God. It was witnessed by the Savior "in its worst forms"[[82]] without extorting from his laps a syllable of rebuke. "The sacred writers did not condemn it."[[83]] And why should they? By a definition [[84]] sufficiently ambiguous and slippery, he undertakes to set forth a form of slavery which he looks upon as consistent with the law of Righteousness. From this definition he infers that the abolitionists are greatly to blame for maintaining that American slavery is inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting that it ought at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the slaveholding South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally, as if a very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment.[[85]]

[Footnote [82]: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]

[Footnote [83]: The same, p. 13.]

[Footnote [84]: The same, p. 12.]

[Footnote [85]: Supra, p. 58.]

A few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate.

• 1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces innocent the form witnessed by our Savior "in Judea?" That, he will by no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the "worst" kind. How then does he account for the alleged silence of the Savior?—a silence covering the essence and the form—the institution and its "worst" abuses?
• 2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor, Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so earnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see.
• Christianity in supporting Slavery, according to Professor Hodge:
• The American system for supporting Slavery:
• "Enjoins a fair compensation for labor"
• Makes compensation impossible by reducing the laborer to a chattel.
• "It insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes of men"
• It sternly forbids its victim to learn to read even the name of his Creator and Redeemer.
• "It condemns all infractions of marital or parental rights."
• It outlaws the conjugal and parental relations.
• "It requires that free scope should be allowed to human improvement."
• It forbids any effort, on the part of myriads of the human family, to improve their character, condition, and prospects.
• "It requires that all suitable means should be employed to improve mankind"
• It inflicts heavy penalties for teaching letters to the poorest of the poor.
• "Wherever it has had free scope, it has abolished domestic bondage."
• Wherever it has free scope, it perpetuates domestic bondage.
• Now it is slavery according to the American system that the abolitionists are set against. Of the existence of any such form of slavery as is consistent with Professor Hodge's account of the requisitions of Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met their notice, and of course, has never roused their feelings or called forth their exertions. What, then, have they to do with the censures and reproaches which the Princeton professor deals around? Let those who have leisure and good nature protect the man of straw he is so hot against. The abolitionists have other business. It is not the figment of some sickly brain; but that system of oppression which in theory is corrupting, and in practice destroying both Church and State;—it is this that they feel pledged to do battle upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty God it is thrown, dead and damned, into the bottomless abyss.
• 3. How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may be thrown over SUCH SLAVERY, as may be consistent with what the Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity? Is this THE slavery which their laws describe, and their hands maintain? "Fair compensation for labor"—"marital and parental rights"—"free scope" and "all suitable means" for the "improvement, moral and intellectual, of all classes of men;"—are these, according to the statutes of the South, among the objects of slaveholding legislation? Every body knows that any such requisitions and American slavery are flatly opposed to and directly subversive of each other. What service, then, has the Princeton professor, with all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the "peculiar institution?" Their gratitude must be of a stamp and complexion quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their "domestic system" under the weight of such Christian requisitions as must at once crush its snaky head "and grind it to powder."

Christianity in supporting Slavery, according to Professor Hodge:	The American system for supporting Slavery:
"Enjoins a fair compensation for labor"	Makes compensation impossible by reducing the laborer to a chattel.
"It insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes of men"	It sternly forbids its victim to learn to read even the name of his Creator and Redeemer.
"It condemns all infractions of marital or parental rights."	It outlaws the conjugal and parental relations.
"It requires that free scope should be allowed to human improvement."	It forbids any effort, on the part of myriads of the human family, to improve their character, condition, and prospects.
"It requires that all suitable means should be employed to improve mankind"	It inflicts heavy penalties for teaching letters to the poorest of the poor.
"Wherever it has had free scope, it has abolished domestic bondage."	Wherever it has free scope, it perpetuates domestic bondage.

And what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions, which Professor Hodge quotes, upon the definition of slavery which he has elaborated? "All the ideas which necessarily enter into the definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the transferable character of the authority and claim of service of the master."[[86]]