.^•^°- ^^'% ) J. - ' - ^^ ^^ - . * « ' A^ ^^ ^ o %.^' '^Sfe= ^./ '^A'- %.^'' ' 0* **•• .^^ <55°. „ . District of Kentucky, 5 Be it remembered, that on the 18th day of February, A. D 1S48, Jonx G. Fee, of said District, deposited in this office, the title of a Book, which is as follows, to wit: " An Anti-Slavery INIanual, being an examination in the light of the Bible, and of Facts, into the Moral and Social wrongs of Slavery, by JoHx G. Fee, a Minister of the Gospel." The right whereof he claims as author and proprietor, in conformity with an act of Congre-s entitled "An act to amend the several acts res- pecting copy rights." A copy, attest, JNO. H. HANNA, Clerk, District of Kentucky, CONTENTS Introduction Chap. I— Slavery Defined 1. Not merly involuntary service 2. Hirelings are not slaves 3. Apprentices are not slaves 4. The condition of the Serf not slavery . 5. Slavery is not mere bond-service . Chap. II. — Prophecy concerning Canaan . Chap. III. — Patriarchal servitude 1. Import of the word Servant . 2. Import of the word Buy 3. Souls gotten in Haran .... Chap. IV.,— Servitude under the Mosaic Economy .1. Points in the text relied upon ■(1) Import of Bondman .... (2.) Import of Buy . (3 ) Import of Possession and Inheritance (4.) Import of Forever .... 2. Nature of the servitude (1.) The servittide was voluntary (2.) The servant had protection of person (3.) Much time for religious services (4.) Right to acquire and disburse property (5.) Right to religious instruction (6.) The servant was a member of the family (7.) Entire liberty was secured to the servant 3. Design of the servitude 4. The persons to whom permitted . Chap. V. — The ten commandments and slavery Rights not created by law .... Page. . 5 . 13 ~. 14 . 16 . 16 . 16 , 16 . 18 . 20 . 20 . 22 . 24 . 32 . 32 . 33 . 36 . 37 . 40 . 46 . 46 . 57 . 62 . 63 . 64 . 64 . 64 . 66 . 67 . 68 . 74 Chap. VI. — Import or words in the New Testament 76 and teaching of Christ 83 Chap. VII. — Duties of Masters and Servants considered 90 Duties of Servants ....'... 92 Duties of Masters 99 1. Objections drawn from Eph. 6: 5-9 .... 101 " '• " 1 Tim. 6: 2 . . . .102 « '' <' Philemon . . . .112 2. Objection dravn from silence of the Apostles . .113 Slaveholders not members of the Apostolic churches . 117 Chap. VIII. — Slavery sijjful in itself .... 126 1. A Ui^urpation of God's authority 126 2. A usurpation of Man's rights 128 (1) Right to personal ownership 129 (2 ) Right to serve God as he chooses . . . .137 (3.) Right to personal security 138 (4.) Right to acquire and hold property .... 140 Evils connected with slavery — to the Slave — to the Master —to the Church ' . 143 Chap. IX. — Remedy for the Evil — Emancipation immedi- ate 154 This IS safe and profitable 155 Colonization unjust, unchristian, hopeless . . . 170 Colonization will tighten slavery on us . . ... 173 Colonization feeds an unchristian prejudice . .. . 175 Amalgamation 176 Other objections answered 176 APPENDIX. Color 183 Structure of the hair of the Negro . . .195 Offensive smell 193 Form \ Features of the face 199 Form of the head 203 Shape of the foot 205 Intellectual Capacity 206 Arbitrary Divorce not sanctioned bythe Mosaic Economy 216 Concubinage not sanctioned by tjie Mosaic Economy . 223 ERRATA. Page 10, line 15, for dru7ikenyiess read drunkards. " 16, '< 28, '' globe read glebe. " 18, " 14, '•' course read curse. " 24, '- 18, G/?er induce read ''or prepare.^' '^ 30. bottom line, for integrity read iniquity. " 37, hue 18, for property read ^j/Ze. '•' 37, first line of the note, for Jvdkin read Jnnkin. "• 63, line 4, for absttnance read ubstinence. '^ 63, '< 37 and 39, for Messkibosheth read Mephiboshet " 63, " 38, for Aeat/ read bread. '' 68, " 29. " does read t/o. " 69, " 20, " i^vw read were; and for or, read and, " 79, ^' 3, of first note, lor saera read sacra. "• 94, line 28, for said to, read told. " 96, " 10, " they read he. -' 97, " 33, '•' crucijication read crucifixion. " 192, read ^j7/it opissan as one word. " 197, line 42, for /lo^e read those,. INTRODUCTION "The human mind," said Professor Miller, of Glasgow, *< revolts at a serious discussion of the subject of Slavery. — Every individual, whatever be his country or complexion, is entitled to freedom." Whilst the above is true, and readily seen by minds always accustomed to free institutions, and never blurred by opposite teachings and customs ; yet, the history of the past tells us, that where institutions have been made familiar by use, hal- lowed by time, and sanctioned by the highest civil and reli- gious authority, the human mind may be induced to embrace,, and practice that which is opposed to the noblest feelings of our nature, and the plainest principles of natural justice. — Under such influences, the mother has been induced to throw her smiling babe into the arms of burning Molock ; and the fa- ther stand with approving silence by, whilst its infant shrieks, amidst devouring flames, were drowned by the hoarse voice of Tophet's drums, and the frantic yells of Religious devotees. By such influence, among nations of antiquity, renowned for learning, intellectual strength and sagacity, the arbitrary murder of the wife by the husband, the child by the parent, have been regarded as lawful, and praised by the deluded pop- ulace. Idolatry, theft, adultery, every sin forbidden in the decalogue, has, in difterent ages, been sanctioned by law, and practiced by the people, as consistent with right, and even praiseworthy. How true are the words, so often quoted : '• Vice is a monster of such frightful mien. As to be dreaded neetls but be seen ; But seen too olt, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace."' "With the above facts before us, it is not a strange thing that slave-holding, when sanctioned by the law of the land, rendered familiar by every day's occurrence, practised by parents to us kind and beloved, and by revered christian friends ; apologised for by the pastor from the sacred desk^ vi INTRODUCTION'. with wliosp name and labours are associated our very hopes of Heaven ; and last of all, enforced by the Judges of our civil courts, with sacred book in hand ; wdth all these influen- ces, goaded on by hearts too full of covetousness, and too fond of ease, it is not strange that even slave»holding should be deemed at least tolerable. Nor will it be deemed a useless work, to frame a serious, and extended argument, to remove teachings engraven by the highest human authority, and the dearest associations. "Even the slave trade," says H. Gregoire, "has been a subject of discussion for more than twenty years in the British Parlia- ment; and so distinguished for talents and sophistry, have been some of its abettors, that a refutation of their false rea- soning, became highly useful^ cind even necessary." Clark- son tells us the same inhuman practice was not only sanctioned by the laws of the land, in his day, but defended as a religious institution. Though this foreign slave trade is declared by the American government to be Piracy, and punishable with death : and though domestic Slavery is in nature, practice and crime, the same as tlie foreign slave trade, (viz: the robbing innocent men and ivomen of their natural liberty,) yet so numerous are its defenders, and so distinguished for talents and authority are some of its defenders, that "a refutation of their false reasoning is highly useful, and even necessary ^ Although there are a multitude of persons who, after all this pro-slavery teaching, do not feel satisfied; and say that "Somehow or other it is not exactly right;" yet, they cannot tell definitely where, and how it is forbidden. This want of definite knowledge — of ready weapons, deprives them of courage to attack. If they had the armour, there would soon be thousands of valiant soldiers in the fields — yea, upon the sunny plains of the South. We mean soldiers engaged only in a moral warfare. Also, there is in the South a vast amount of teaching like the following: "In olden times there were some practices, suffh as concubinage, arbitrary divorce, and slavery, which God "winked at" — tolerated. The Apostles got rid of the first two of these practices, but saw fit to continue the toleration of the lalter." Taking the former for granted — as true, many suppose Slavery is one of the things to be tolerated. And we believe all those books written by anti Slavery men, on the principle, and on the admission that God did tolerate some anti-chrislian practices, and among others Slavery, unrebuked in the church, yet inculcated prin? INTRODUCTION. Vll ciples opposed to them, and such as would eventually wear them out — all such books, and all such teaching, we believe to be erroneous, and wholly inadequate to the end — the removal of Slavery. In despite of tlie most laboured arguments, the people will still say and believe, that if these practices were not sinful then, they are not sinful now : if christians might practise them then, they may practice them now: the circum stances of time and place, cannot change moral right or wrong. We need, then, a different kind of teaching. And it was in view of the above facts, that a worthy President of one of our Southern Colleges, said to me : ♦ We need an Anti- Slavery Manual, giving a concise, yet comprehensive Bible argument, showing Slavery to be sin; and one that we can put in the hands of every man in the South.' As a citizen of the South, as one who has been born and reared in the midst of Slavery, as one who has lived and la- bored along with slaves from infancy to manhood, and who has seen Slavery in its workings from its Northern to its Southern boundary, I believe the words of that President to be true. Prior to this, because God in his providence had thrown my lot in the land of Slavery, and made me acquaint- ed with its workings, and the feelings of those involved in it, I felt called, and had consecrated my life to the work of preaching the Gospel of love to all men, designed to remove that common enemy of religion, of virtue, of knowledge, and of human happiness — Slavery. In 1844, I delivered in outline, the argument contained in the following chapters, to some of the citizens of my native county — Bracken county, Kentucky. In 1845, I delivered the same in Lewis county, to the congregation to which I now minister. In 1846, by request, I sent the whole argument to the True American; in which, in a series of numbers, the argument was published. At the suggestion of some friends, I have revised these numbers, and collected them into chap- ters in their present form. And, as the whole is for gratui= tons distribution, and designed to be a kind of Manual for the aid of those who are desirous to gather truth and facts on the all-absorbing question, I have felt free, for the sake of enforc- ing the original plan, to make some extracts from authors which have appeared since the publication of the original numbers. Our argument is chiefly a Bible argument; because, i. Wc need to enlist the conscience. Said a late writer^ Viii iNTRODtJCTIOX. "The more I see of Slavery, the more am I convinced thai whenever we move against Slavery, we should do so from the consideration that it is sin against God." "For," said he, "whenever we lose sight of this fact, we lose our hold upon conscience." The loss of this is a great loss. Facts prove that it is conscience, that has nerved the arm, fired the heart, and emboldened the soul in all great struggles for truth and liberty. It has given permanency, as well as potency, to action. So great is the desire for popularity, and the unwill- ingness to meet opposition, that unless we can get men to feel that they owe a duty to then- fellow man, the cause of truth, and of God — that unless they move forward in behalf of the oppressed their souls cannot be unspotted from guilt, even the non-slaveholder is apt to "jiear slightly," the cries of pa- triotism and philanthropy. Witli the slaveholder, who has hundreds and thousands invested in his slaves, unless Vv'e can awaken his conscience, lay the hand upon his soul and cause it to tremble for its future, and immortal interests, we shall find it difficult, if not impos- sible, to convince him that it is his duty, and for his good, that he should make sacrifice of his present interests, and "let the oppressed go free." 2. The Bible in our country, is the standard of right. Its decisions are final. And there is not a Judge upon the bench, nor a jury in the land, who will decide in opposition to what are the generally received teachings of the Bible. If these teachings, or interpretations be wrong, they will decide with them; because they understand them to be the teaching of the Bible. If the common interpretation of the Bible be wrong, then there is the greater necessity that a correct inter- pretation be placed in the hands of every man — of every juror — that their decisions may not only be made in accord- ance witli what they shall suppose to be the Bible, but also, with truth and right. 3. We appeal to the Bible, because the apologists of Slave- ry also appeal to it ; and, as we believe, by false interpreta- tions, make it to support despotism of the grossest form. — We wish to see it free from such perversions. We wish to make no new, or foreign interpretations, but simply tear oft' the false glosses that have been placed upon it, that it may ffhine with its original purity and righteousness. 4. In this exposition we have indulged a litQe in verbal criticisms. This we have done because much of the pro- INTRODUCTION. IX slavery argument in the South, at least in Kentucky, is inter* woven, or built upon Greek and Hebrew criticisms. And I know that many persons seem to think the pro-slavery argu- ment is strengthened by the fact that it is backed by such an array of learning. In order to the greatest good, it is neces- sary to meet this array of learning; and by this means ex- pose the deceptions, that no soul be deluded; and that the advocates of freedom may have their positions strongly forti- fied, and their confidence unwavering. In our criticisms, we have endeavored to present them so that the common reader of English will see their force and propriety. 5. In order that the evil of Slavery may be fully seen, we have also incorporated some facts, showing the evil effQcts of Slavery upon general intelligence — upon the domestic and so- cial relations of life — upon the efficiency of the church, and the purity of religion. Its corrupting influence upon the Gospel, calls loudly for the interposition of every voice in the land— every lover of vir- tue, and the salvation of the soul of the master, as well as the slave. The Bible teaches us that the sum and essence of all religion is supreme love to God, and equal love to our neighbor: that there is no religion without this. See Luke 10: 27, Math. 22: 37—40. And it is delusion to hope that We love God when wc do not love our neighbor as ourselves : for, « He that lovetheth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen." (John 4: 20.) "And if ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14: 15.) The practical teaching of Slavery is the opposite of all this and yet it is alledged to be in accordance with the religion of the Bible. The purity of religion then and the salvation of the soul, requires us to speak. Silence is treason to God — treachery to man. We honestly believe that the policy of those who keep si- lence on this subject, in order that they may not waken the prejudice of the master, and thus have " access to master and slave," is as ruinous in practice, as it is corrupting in principle. The word of God (1st Cor. 6: 10,) says, Drunkards shall not enier the kingdom of Heaven, This, of course, means a dehberate and unrepontinof drunkard. Now, suppose some individuals, or denominations, in order not to awaken the prej.udiGe of drunkards, and get access to them, should apol- ogise for drunkenness — saying it was a Patriarchical practice, as in the case of those good men, Noah and Lot; or, if thpv B INTRODUCTION. did not apologise for it, say, "We will be silent — we will go along and preach the Gospel, [or a part of the Gospel they mean,] and let these licensed sins alone;" saying pervertingly, "Be subject to the powers that be." What would be the consequence of such a policy ? Drunkenness would be mul- tiplied all over the land, and drunkards would go to the Judg- ment bar deluded by false teaching. By such a policy the Gospel would be lowered in its clanns, and deprived of its power to purify society — be con- verted into a mere "conscience plaster," quieting the inebriate in his lust, until at the Judgment day he beholds — oh, my God ! too late — that he is still in his sins ; and with anguish of soul, he cries, Farewell Heaven ! farewell forever ! ! Now, reader, the same scripture, (1st Cor. 6: 10,) which says drunkenness shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, says also. No extortioner shall enter the kingdom of Heav- en. That slaveholding is the worst form of extortion, few will deny. To be silent, then, is to teach men that they may live in the worst of extortion, and yet go to Heaven, It is to deprive the Gospel of its powder to remove such sins — leave the poor slave ground down in ignorance ; and cheat the mas- ter out of the salvation of his soul. O, the criminality of such a course ! Will not the blood of souls be required at the hands of those watchmen who refuse " to speak, ta warn" the extortioner "from his way"? — "His blood will I require at their hands." (See Ezekiel 33: 8.) And would it not be better that the South should be without a Gos- pel Ministry, than with one which corrupts the word of God, and allows practices which as effectually exclude from Heaven, as Heathen darkness itself? I believe it. More- over, if the South had not a delusive Gospel, which now gives a partial quietus to conscience, she would soon seek a pure Gospel, or a whole Gospel; for, "all that a man hath, will he give for his life." Let churches go, rather than delude them with false hopes, and corrupt the very standard of right, Christ and his Aposdes often left, if men would not hear the whole truth. Then, as we desire the purity of the Gospel^ and the never-dying soul of the master as well as the slave, we must in faithfulness speak. Did we do otherwise, you would say we are "hirelings whc flee when we see the wolf coming." But the good shepherd, the true pastor will stand by the sheep, and raise the warn- ing voice, because he loves the sheep, and fears his God. — INTRODUCTION". xi (John 10: 12.) We are free to say, we believe there are good and conscientious men, who pursue the policy of saying nothing about the sinfulness of Slavery. But charity for the men, should not lead us to overlook their practice ; which we believe to be delusive and ruinous. With these views, to re- main silent is to be unloyal to God, and unfaithful to master, as well as to slave. This, then, dear reader, is our reason for speaking against a sin sanctioned by law, and practiced by men we love. We have endeavored to speak in a spirit of love and kind- ness ; for we know the difficulties of those involved in slave- holding. We know the biasing effect of education, of exam- ple, of interest, and of prejudice. We know, too, the anxiety of an awakened conscience on the question of human rights — the enslavement of our fellow-men, the brethren of Christ, and children of our Heavenly Father. We know the solici- tude of those, who really ivish to know what is truth on this question, which is now the great question in Church and State. We have, therefore, written such truths as were effective in awakening our minds, with the hope that they may be found useful to others. Our interests are identified with yours: and we have no ^ motive to say, or do any thing on this subject, but such as is drawn from duty to God and man. About this subject we may honestly differ: yet, let us have charity for each other, and a mutual expression of our honest convictions of truth ; remem- bering that it is by the free expression of opinion, tliat the landmarks of truth are advanced ; that " truth has noth- ing to fear from error, so long as she is left free to combat it;" and that freedom of thought, and liberty of speech are natu- ral, and constitutional rights. THE AUTHOR. CHAPTER I. SLAVERY DEFINED. "Compared with Slavery," said Dr. Fuller, of South Car. olina, "all other questions, that agitate the minds of men in the United States, are really trifling." And the great point to be settled in reference to this question is, whether it is in itself sinful. As the standard of right and wrong in our country is the Bible, our decision of this question, must be made by an appeal to the teaching of the Bible on the subject. But, before we can call in the decision of the Bible, we must define what is meant by Slavery; or what relation con- stitutes a man a Slave. Much confusion on this subject, has arisen from the want of definitions, and from those incorrectly made. " The term .,Slave," says Dr. Johnson, "is derived Worn Slavi or Slavonians, v/ho were subdued and sold by the Veni- tians, and signifies one mancipated or sold to a master. Manci- pation on the same authority is involuntary obligation. Slavery. The Latin mancipium, from which the word mancipated is derived, signifies, (1) property, or right of perpetual posses-* sion, as lands. (2) a slave." A Slave, then, is one ivho, icilh&ut his consent, is held as property, before and after he is of age — during lifetime^ and that in such a manner that he may acquire nothing, pos- sess nothing, nor do any thing, either for himself, his wife, his family, his church, his country, his God, but with the consent of his master. And Slavery is that relation in which unoffending human beings are, without their consent, made and held as property for lifetime. That the slave is thus held, and is one in this relation, is proved: 1. By the laws of Slave States. "A Slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry and 14 SLAVERY DEFINED. his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing but what must belong to his master." Code of Lousiana. *'81aves shall be deemed, sold, taken, and reputed to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, their executors, administrators and assigns to all intent-s, con- structions and purposes whatsoever." See laws of South Carolina, Stroud, p. 22. 2. From similarity of tenure with other property, in all Slave States. What we hold as property, we use and dispose of as we please, without consulting the will of said property. So, the will, interest, happiness or duties of the Slave, may be wholly disregarded. 3. From claim of the master. He claims his slave, not as a hireling, child or ward, hut as his properly. To prevent confounding the above relation with those which are lawful and necessary, I remark : 1. All who perform involuntary service for others are not Slaves; otherwise, unwilling jurors, or those citizens com- pelled to fight for a season the batdes of their country, would be Slaves." Much error and confusion have arisen from defining Slavery to be merely involuntury servitude. Invol- untary "servitude is a part of Slavery, but not the whole of it. Dr. Fuller, and Dr. Rice, (in substance,) with many other apologists for Slavery, have assumed Paley's definition: — "an obligation to labor for the benefit of the master without the contract or consent of the servant," as a correct definition of Slavery. If this definition be correct, then, as a child is under obli- gation to perform service for the parent without contract or consent, there would be no difference between the relation which a child sustains to its parent, and the relation which a Slave sustains to his master. But this is not true. For, (1.) The relation of child to parent is natural. That of the Slave to the master is not. Freedom is the natural state of all men; so soon as they attain the age of manliood. (2.) The relation or obligation of the child to the parent, is only during the years of minority; but Slavery is for life. (3.) The child receives more than an equivalent for his services; but the Slave does not receive any thing like an equivalent. Slavery is continued only for the supposed profits of extortion. If masters had to give equivalents to their Slaves, Slavery would soon cease. (4.) Tlie cliild in its natural relation may never be sold. SLAVERY DEFINED. l5 To sell is an abuse of the relation. But slavery makes one adult man the property of another man; liable at all times to be sold as other property. Do you say the master may have the power to sell, but he ought not to exercise it; and if he don't, then there is no harm done in holding the man as a Slave? We reply, 1. If it would be wrong for the master to exercise the power, then it was wrong in us to give him the power. We ought to give no man a power, which it would be wrong for him to exer- cise. We ought not to tempt him to evil. 2. The liability of the sale of the Slave does not depend alone upon the will of the 'inaster. The laiv has made that slave property, and the lavj holds him liable to sale as other property, irrespective of the wish of either him or his master. If the master is in debt — becomes bankrupt, the law seizes the Slave, and sells him to the highest bidder — the husband from the wife, the wife from the husband, the parent from the child. Or if the master dies, then the law divides these toil- worn slaves to the heirs of the master. And these heirs by law, may sell, or separate these human beings, just as they do the hogs and cattle of their father. They are, by law, made property, subject to all the liabilities of property. • Do you say pass a law forbidding slaves to be sold and fam- ilies to be separated? We reply, (1) you would pass an abolition act: for no man would buy a slave or slaves when he knew he would be compelled to keep that slave, irrespec- tive of what his character might prove to be, or irrespective of the numbers that might increase on his hands. 2. With such a law in existence slavery never could have had an existence, unless all enslavers had become practical kid- nappers, seizing men in a state of freedom, and each master for himself reducing his fellow-man to a state of slavery, which thing. Dr. Rice says, "was an unrighteous thing." 3. Such a law would really destroy Slavery and convert it mto something else — a mere bond service. There is a relation regulated by law, in which human be- ings are not only held to involuntary service for life, but also are held as other property, liable to sale. This relation differs from other relations, and is, therefore, correctly designated by a different and specific term. That term is Slavery. And the relation above alluded to is Slavery. But a relation iii which human beings were simply required to labour during life for another, without the latter having power to sell ther 16 SLAVERY DEriNED. servant, this relation would be a different th!ng — a mere op- pressive bond-service. But we did not set out to discuss bond-service. Slavery, then, is not mere obligation to per- form service.* It includes property tenure in man for life. 2. All hirelings are not slaves. This relation is, (1) vol- untary. (2) For the mutual good of the laborer and em- ploye'r. (3) The rights of man as man, are regarded and secured. 3. All apprentices are not slaves. (1) This relation is en- tered upon only as a bond service during the period of minor- ity in which the law and guardian take the natural and necessary relations of parent. (2) For the mutual good of apprentice and master. To the apprentice a full equivalent is given for services rendered. Not so with the Slave. (3) His rights as man are all the while regarded and se- cured. The apprentice is never regarded as in person the property of the master. All the master has, is a claim to his services for the season of minority, or for a term of years. He may not hold the apprentice beyond the proper period for contracting the marriage relation, nor may he sell the apprentice. Thus with the apprentice the marriage relation cannot be violated, nor other social and religious duties be in- terrupted. To confound this relation with Slavery is to be guilty of the grossest fallacy. 4. The condition of the serf or villein is not Slavery. As a fixture he is confined to the globe, but he may not be indi- vidually sold and deprived of his home, nor his wife, nor his children, nor of religious privileges on Sabbath. The relation is indeed oppressive, and the Government which inflicts the oppression commits sin in so doing. And if Slavery and the condition of the serfs were precisely tlie same, slavery would also be sin, because it is not a natu- ral relation and is a robbery of the most precious of all boons, — liberty. 5. Slavery is not mere bond-service for a deiinite period of time. The Jew might sell himself, that is his services, for six years: or for forty-nine years — until the year of Jubilee. Still this was not Slavery — it was voluntary servitude: and *In this respect we believe the Biblical Repertory, 1836, p. 279, 293 -294, is defective. SLAVERY DEFINED. It the purchaser might not sell the man. He had only a claim to his services for himself and family. In like manner white men in America have sold their services for a time. Nor was the condition of the poor Jew, who was sold for theft, until his work should pay the fine, that of American Slavery. This v/as the obligation of a criminal to perform service for a definite period of time. Both of the above cases differ from that of a Slave in that, the service of the Slave is the involuntary service of an innocent man for a lifetime. Now different relations or conditions should always be dis- tinguished by different terms. Propriety and justice require it. And as " a definition of any thing is that which distin- guishes it from every thing else," Slavery is not defined, until it is distinguished from every thing else. Great confusion is made, and false impressions, even by Anti-Slavery men, in calling the bond-service of the Mosaic economy; Slavery, where in reality it was something else. — It was simple bond-service, in which children were bound by parents until they should be "of age," and in the case of adult servants, they hound themselves for a term of years, as we shall show. And if it is insisted that these servants were placed in the hands of the Jew without their wills being consulted, we shall show that the Jew might not hold the servant so — in involuntary servitude. Mere bend-service is uot Slavery.* But Slavery is that relation in which one innocent man, without his consent, is made, for lifetime, the property of another, or others. The Slave is held in such manner that his person, time, labor and all natural rights may be controlled by his master, irrespective of the Slave. The question then is, whether this relation is sanctioned by the Bible. * A late writer referring to some valuable articles which he had writ- ten, says : " We have sometimes used the terms Slave and Slavery in the preceding discussion, but any one can see that the Mosaic servitude had none of the characteristics of modern Slavery." Why then, we ask, con- found things entirely dissimilar with the same terms. As long as our teachers call the Mosaic servitude Slavery, the people will be likely to infer that it is what it is called. Mr. Barnes has done the same thing — calling that Slavery which his previous definitions show, is not real Slavery. C CHAPTER II. THE PROPHECY CONCERNING CANAAN. The primitive grant given in Gen. 1: 26, does not sanclio'rt Slavery. There, we are told that God gave to man dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowls of the air, the beasts of the field; but over man he gave him no dominion. A like grant was given, or continued to Noah after the flood; (Gen. ix: 2.) But over man, he had no dominion. But some, even Ministers of the Gospel, and Judges of our civil Courts, in their instructions to Grand Juries, in vindication of African enslavement, plead Gen. ix: 25. "And he (Noah) said cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he beunta liis brethren." The argument drawn from this passage is as follows : — ' " The text declares that the Canaanites were to b^ cursed for Ham's sin. The course to be inflicted was enslavement by the descendants of Shem and Japheth. We as the descend^ ants of Japheth are enslaving the Canaanites, and are there- fore, doing right." The conclusion is false; being drawn from premises which are themselves false. 1. It is assumed that the text declares a curse, that was to be inflicted on the Canaanites, for Ham's sins. And, 2. The people we are enslaving are Canaanites. In answer to the first proposition I reply: — 1. The text is s'lmTply a for7n of prophecy, fore- telhng the curse that would come upon the Canaanites for their own sins; just as the blessings pronounced by the patri- archs on their children, were forms of prophecy, which the patriarchs were inspired to foretell at the time. See Crudeil on the word blessing. The act of Ham was the suggesting occasion, or the act eliciting the prophecy; as the act of Hezekiab was the occa- sion, eliciting the prophecy foretelling the despoiling of his goods. See Isa., xxxix: 6. The truth then is this: the patriarch was inspired by God to foretell on this occasion, which had some analogy to the sins of the Canaanites, the curse that would come upon them for their own alns. Proof: 1. The original Hebrew word THE PROPHECY CONCERNING CANAAN. 19 (urur) is correctly rendered, cursed shall be Canaan. Indeed our own English translation conveys the same idea, if we observe the context: "A servant of servants shall he be.'''' — ■ Not, now is, but ^'s/iall />f," is the English version. 2. The principles of God's moral government require us to consider the punishment as inflicted for their own sins. — - He does not, by direct and specific providence, punish one man for the sin or guilt of another. " The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor the father the iniquity of the son." Ez. xviii: 20. 3, The scriptures declare positively that the curse inflicted was for their own sins. See Deiut. xviii: 12, "and because of these abominations, the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee." Lev. xviii: 25. "And the land is defiled: therefore do I visit the iniquity thereof upon it," &;c. Also Gen. xv: 16. These facts prove that the text is, with others like it, simply a form of prophecy foretelling the curse that would come upon some of the descendants of Canaan for their own sins. 3ee the Commentaries of Bush, Scott, Coke and Clark. In answer to the second premise, I reply: There is no proof that the Africans we are enslaving, are Canaanites. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative ; and inasmuch as they vindicate slavery, not on the ground that it is a natural relation, and necessary; but only on the ground of permission from God, they must show positively a permission from God, and then that these Africans among us, are the people whom we are permitted to enslave by the authority of the above text. This cannot be done, while there is proof abundant that they are not the Canaanites. The Canaanites were Asiatics, living in the land of Canaan, and are the people who after- wards settled the islands of the Mediterranean; and are well known not to have been either in their physiognomy or color like our Africans.* Again : Their language was as different from that of the people on the western coast of Africa, as the Hebrew is from ours, or ours from the Hottentot or Indian language. * Many seem to think the dark complexion and pecuhar form of the Negroes are badges of Noah's curse, and that their feeble intellects unfit them for freedom, that these are evidences that God designed the Negroes to be Slaves. We often hear these sentiments proclaimed amongst us from men in high places. On the subject of color, form, and intellectual jcapacity, see Appendix, letter A. 20 THE PROPHECY CONCERNING CANAAN. But if we admit, what is not true, that the people we are enslaving are the Canaanites, still the text furnishes no justification of our enslavement of them; the text being only a form of prophecy, and a mere form of prophecy never justifies those who fulfil it; otherwise the Egyptians who oppressed the Hebreivs — Judas who betrayed Christ, and the Jews who crucified him, were innocent, For it was foretold that they would do these things. Once more. The prophecy in the text has had its fulfil- ment long since. First, in the subjugation of the Canaanites by the Jews, who were the descendants of Shem — Second, by the Greeks and Romans, who were the descend- ants of Japheth, and now by the Turks, and needs not our enslavement of a different people to secure its fulfilment. — Then, so far as this text is concerned, we have no more right to enslave the black man, than the white man. CHAPTER III. PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. The next reliance in defence of American Slavery is the practice of the Patriarchs. Here it is assumed, first, that the Patriarchs held Slaves: and Gen. xiv: 14, 17, 12, and other like passages, are plead as proof. And second, as they were good men, and God did not openly censure their practice, therefore we may do as they did. In the first position it is assumed that the words servant, bondman and bondmaid, means Slave, — one held as property, without his consent, before and after he is of age^ whereas, the Hebrew word ehed, which is translated servant, like our word servant, simply denotes one who does service for an- other, loithout regard to the time for lohich, or the principles upon ivhich, he docs service. The service may be voluntary, or it may be involuntary: it may be for a limited time, or it loaay be for an unlimited time. The import of the word must PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 21 be determined by the connection in which it is used: — by historic facts, or by laws defining the servant's condition. — A servant in Ohio,' and a servant in Kentucky, may mean a very different relation. The term ebed, which we translate servant and bondman, "nowhere in the Scriptures, of necessity imphes Slavery." — So says Barnes. Like our word servant, it does not of necessity mean one held as properly without his consent, before and after he is of age. Take, for example, Isa. 42: 1, " Behold my servant whom I uphold; mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to the Gen- tiles." The word servant here, is applied to Christ. Are we to infer, therefore, that he was a Slave, doing compulsory or unwilling service, and held as an article of property, liable to barter and sale? Surely not. Again, in 1 Kings, 12: 7, we have these words of the coun^ sellot's to Rehoboam — " If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words unto them, then they will be thy servants forever." Here, and in verse 4lh preceding, w^as a declara-- tion that the people, oivning themselves and their property^ and as free as we are, would voluntarily labor for the good of Rehoboam, if he would, for them. The subjects of Saul and David, who paid a tribute or tax, were called servants; see 1 Sam. 8: 17; 1 Chron. 21: 3.--. Once more, see Joshua 9: 23— "Now, therefore, ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood, and drawers of water for the house of my God." Tiie word bondmen here, has been quoted as evidence that the Gibeonites were Slaves to the Israelites; that they held the Gibeonites as individual property, with absolute con- trol. But we shall show that even bondman here, does not mean a Slave. For if we read Josh. 10: 1-5, Ezra 2: 70, 2 Sam. 21: 1-14, we learn that the Gibeonites were not the individual property of the Israelites, owned and controlled by individuals, but that they as a people, lived as a distinct tribe or nation, having their own property and families; and as a tax, or revenue to the house of God, a part of them, the Ne-^ thinims, (those who did the temple service,) were required to da ' a certain kind, and amount of labor, "for the house of my God." Even these Nethinims, who were the part of the Gibeonites doing the temple service, lived in their own cities; 9,ee Neh. 7: 73. Thus we see their bond service was a 22 PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. requirement of the law, that they should perform a certahi amount of labor for the house of God— woi for individual Israelites.* — A service like to that which we maybe required to pay to our government in military service ; or that which subjugated nations pay as a tax to their king, or similar to that which the people of England pay to, or for, as in the established church, only it was paid in labor. Bush, in his Notes on Exod. 21: 2, says: "the word servant is applied to the serving of worshippers, of tributaries, of domestics, of Levites, of sons to a father, of subjects to a ruler, of hirelings^ of soldiers, of public officers, &:c. And to interpret it Slave, or to argue, from the fact of the words being used to denote domestic servants, that they were made servants by force, worked with- out pay, and held as articles of properly, would be a gross and gratuitous assumption." Then the mere fact that the patriarchs had servants, does no more prove that these servants were slaves, than the fact that a farmer in Ohio has a body of servants in his employ, proves that they are Slaves. More will be said on this when we come to the Mosaic institution, where servitude was regr ulated by the law. But secondly, it is maintained that the patriarchs not only had servants, but servants bought with money ; and these r»ust have been slaves. We reply, to buy, in the days of the patriarchs, and Mosaic institutions, as it has been with us, did jiot give absolute ownership, or unlimited control in all cases. The word buy in English, and kana in Hebrew, which is the word we translate, ''to huy,'^ are modified or limited in their signification by the laws of the land where they are used, and the subjects to which they are applied. See Bib- lical Repository, April No. 1844, page 308. Examples in illustration of this rule. When a Jew, ov ^stranger, bouglit a piece of land under the Mosaic economy, that Jew, or stranger, had not absolute ownership, or unlim^ * Though this scrvic-e was not Slavery, its requirement was withoutf divine sanction. God had commanded the Israelites to slay every thing in the land' of Canaan. But because the " Princes of the congrega- tion swore unto the Gibeonites, that they would not destroy them ;"' yet ■as these Gibeonites had lied unto the princes, Joshua and the princes required a tax of bond service of them, to the house of God, Yet we are told that this whole transaction was wifJiout " council from the mouth of the Lord."' Indeed, contrary to his previous command. So Brisbane in loco. So there was no authority for exacting this bond service. PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE; ^Z ited control. He had the use of the land until the year of Jubilee, when it reverted to the original owner. See Lev; 35; 24. Such, doubtless, was the tenure in man. By the law his service was secured until he was of age, or in other cases, until the year of Jubilee, when all went out free. See Lev. 25: 10. "Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and pro- claim liberty throughout all the land, and to all the inhabit- ants thereof: ye shall return every man unto his possessionj and ye shall return every man to his family." When a He- brew servant was bought, the master had not absolute or un- limited control, but simply a claim to his services for six years; see Exod. 21: 2. So with us, when emigrants to this country are sold for their passage money, they are sold for a definite period of time, and the man who buys them has a claim upon their services for a few months | then they are free men, having all the while their natural rights protected. The emigrant received an equivalent for his labor, and when the stipulated service was performed, he went free ; though he had been bought. He received his price, or hire himself, and that before hand, and was therefore said to be bought: Boaz bought Ruth. (Ruth, 4: 10.) Hosea bought his wife. (Hos. 3: 2.) Jacob his ; but it does not follow, that because these were bought, that they were, therefore, held as slaves. Nehemiah and his brethren bought some of their brethren from the Persians; see Nehem, 5: 8; but they were not held as slaves, though bought. We learn from the record, that they were restored to freedom immediately : moreover, the law would not permit them, they being Jews, to be held lon- ger than six years; see Exod. 21: 2. Though bought, they were not held as Slaves : nor is there a particle of evidence that the servants of the Patriarchs were held in involuntary servitude, a day after they had attained the age of jreemen. It is wholly an assumption for men to say they did. It can- not be proved, and the burden of proof lies with those who take the affirmative. Neither the word servant^ nor the word buy, prove that those doing service for the Patriarchs were Slaves. "Nothing but historic facts and laws defining the condition or relation of those doing service, can prove that they were Slaves. Now, having shown the signification of the word buy, even admitting that the Patriarchs might, or did buy children of their parents, still, in the absence of all proof to the con- trary, it is fair to infer that the Patriarchs followed the gen* 24 PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. eral custom of the world by giving liberty to man, when he attained the age of free men. If they bought adults, there is no proof that they bought of a third person, for servants might, and did sell themselves — (Lev. 25: 47,) — agree toper- form service for a given term of years. One more text remains to be noticed. "And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their SUBSTANCE that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan." (Gen. 12: 5.) Although the term substance is here used to denote all their property, and a distinction made between their substance, and the souls gotten, or proselyted in Haran, some persons overlooking this distinction, have labored to show that these souls were held as property also, and that the Hebrew word asah, means to purchase as absolute property. The Hebrew word asah, a form of which is here rendered ^^gotten,^^ means to induce; and "g-o/^en" is to be here under- stood in the same sense that a Missionary of the present dayj "o-e/s" another to go with him to India, or China. The word is here used in the plural form; and designates the persons whom Abraham, Lot and Sarah, had proselyted, or induced to forsake their idolatry, and go with them as a colony into Canaan: and as such, were fit subjects to receive the "seal of the righteousness of faith." "The wordisused^ (Gen. 2: 2,) to signify the finishing of God's creation. It expresses, (Gen. 5: 1,) God's work in fashioning the man^ "whom he had created, according to his own image and like- ness. It is used (Ezekiel 18: .31,) to express the work of regeneration or restoring, in a sinner, the lost image of his maker. In the passage before us, it expresses the instrumen- tahty of a prophet, and his pious wife, and nephew, in the conversion of the souls whom they brought with them from Haran." S. Crothers. The passage in the Targum of Jonathan is thus rendered: " The souls whom they had made proselyte in Haran." The Targum of Jerusalem : " The souls proselyted in Haran." Jerome, one of the most learned of the Christian Fathers, renders it thus: "The persons whom they had proselyted." Menochius, M^ho wrote before our present translation of the Bible, renders it, " Quas de idolatraria convert erent,'' "Those Ivhom they had converted from idolatry." Quoted from Weld's Bible Argument. 'iPATfeiARCUAL SERVITUbfe. 2^ The "souls gotten" then, means those whom they had induced to forsake idolatry, and go with them to the worship of the true God. That the souls gotten, could not have been slaves — persollS held as property without their consent, before and after age — will be clear from facts which we now proceed to notice. (Having shown that the arguments relied upon by the affirm- ative, or advocates of Slavery, prove nothing; we proceed to adduce facts, showing that the servants of the Patriarchs could not have been /ic/cZ as Slaves.) And, I'st. The employ- ment and situation of the Patriarchs. They were wandering shepherds, going from country to country, amidst hostile tribes, and having no more power than one man. They had no confederacies as we have. There was no league of States, or Nations to oppress their poor as we have. They could not call to their aid the military power of a nation, to suppress the tirst instincts of nature. They could not call to their aid the voice -of the magistrate, the prison, the fetter, to restrain their fellow man from eiTorts to be a man, and not a chattel. The servant could go where, when, and as he chose, just as a voluntary subject of one of the chiefs of our western wilds now can. What would Abraham do with three hundred and eighteen trained or armed servants, led to Dan, the extreme point of the province? What would one of our Southern slavehold- ers do with three hundred and eighteen of their full grown Slaves at Buffalo in Nev>^ York, Or Detroit in Michigan, with but a step between them and Canada? — Think you they would be forced back to be the property of, and labor for the gain of a master who had no power to compel them? — Who could call no other force than that of a single individual, to "subjugate them ? No ! — such would be contrary alike to reason, and facts. And could we look upon Abraham as the man "doing justice and judgment," ? (Gen. 18: 19,) — Who would, either by his own arm, or by law, compel three hun- dred and eighteen of his fellow men to go into bondage, and toil for his individual good, or that of his family? Would not this be seltishness in the extreme? Away then, with such charges of selfishness. I consider it a reproach, alike upon the pious Patriarch, and upon that God whose darling attributes are goodness, justice, and mercy. Second fact; proving that the servants of the Patriarchs were not Slaves — persons deprived of personal ownership^ D 26 PATRIARCHAL SERVlttJDfe. Avitliout llieir consent, both before and after age. It is the fact that all males were circumcised ; which in the case of every adult, must have been voluntary, in order to be valid before God. All must be circumcised. Gen. 17: 13, ''He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." Exod. 12: 44, " Every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof," i. e. of the passover. Now in every adult, this must have been voluntary. (L) From the very nature of the covenant. In this covenant he ^^ chose the Lord to be his God;" and voluntarily agreed to be his willing servant, just as an individual, who now receives the rite of Baptism, if an adult, must receive it willingly, in order to be valid. In it, he v/illingly chooses the Lord to be his God. No one would think of compelling an individual to be baptized; or to take the covenant: otherwise, "it would be the seal of a lie," and "God abhors the sacrifice where not the heart is found," — yet the servant 7nust be circumcised. The law, as seen above, required it ; and if he did not, "that soul shall be cut off from his people" saith the Lord. See Gen. 17: 14. Then the Patriarchs could have none in their service, save those who were circumcised; and thus were incorporated into the church of God : yet this church, from the very nature of its organization, might have none but willing members. If he should refuse to be circumcised and become a member of the church, he must leave the Patri- archs. He must then have been voluntary in his stay, and in his services. If he had received circumcision when a child, then when he had attained the age of accountability, he must voluntarily accept and acknowledge this circumcision; for "the God of Jacob would not accept the worship of any other than a willing heart." (2.) The testimony of Maimonides, one of the most cele- brated of the Jewish Rabbis; who was called "the eagle of the doctors, and the lamp of Israel." He says, "whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into covenant. * * * If the master receive a grown slave, and he be unwilling, his master is to bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 27 and by love and kindness, for one year; after which, shonld he refuse so long, it is forbidden longer than twelve months, and the master must send him back to the strangers whence he came; for the God of Jacob will not accept any other than the worship of a ivilling heart.''' Quoted in Stroud's sketches, page 63, from Gill's Exposition. Third fact. No mention is made of the servants of the Patriarchs being considered as property. Some suppose, from Gen. 26: 14, that Isaac had Slaves. "He had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants." Notice in the text, that whilst it is said he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, it is not said he had possession of servants. Heb. avuddah rabbah, much service; or many servants, just as a large farmer in Ohio would have many servants; or as rich shep- herds in Oregon where their wandering life, amid wandering tribes, would forbid the possibility of holding men as property, against their will. The servants of the Patriarchs are often spoken of, when the greatness, or strength of the Patriarchs, is recorded; just as the greatness or strength of a king is spoken of, by noticing a list of his goods, together with the number of his soldiers. The mere fact that they were men- tioned along with catde, sheep, &;c., no more proves them to have been property, than quadrupeds; — or without souls, or reason. By the same mode of reasoning, in Exodus 20: 10, we should prove the man's wife to be his property; — held like his ox. She was not property. He had no right to sell her. She was a companion to him, and not to any other man. Yet she was not propeity, otherwise she might be sold as other properly. AVhere, as in Gen. 31: 16-18, Joshua 22: 8, 2d Chron. 32: 27-29, wealth is alluded to, no slaves are enrolled as property. Whilst sheep, and oxen, and silver, &c. are recorded, servants are not mentioned. Another fact showing that the servants of the Patriarchs were not held as Slaves, is this: no record is given of the sale or barter of a single servant in the history of all the Patriarchs. Nor is there any record of their being given away. Pharoah, Laban and others, living in heathen lands, gave servants to Abraliam and others. But the example of Idolaters is no rule for Christians. No record can be found of the Patriarchs giving away their servants. When Abra- ham gave gifts to Abimalcch he gave sheep, and oxen; but no servants. ^8 PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE, Some maintain from Gen. 24: 36,, that Abraham gave his servants to Isaac; yet in that same chapter we are told in verses 34 and 52, that Eliezer was Abraham's servant; and not Isaac's, " I am Abraham's servant," says Ehezer. — "And it came to pass," says Moses, "when Abraham's ser- vant heard their words, he worshipped the Lord," &;c. Now when it is said in verse 36, that Abraham "hath given to him (i. e. Isaac) all that he hath,'* both Moses, and Eliezer the servant, must have known that he held no property in his servants; but that they were simply, either hirelings or per- sons bound for a season. Again: We know he did not literally give all he had to Isaac, for in Gen. 25: 6, we are told "he ga,ve gifts to to the sons of his concubines," "and sent them away." And if his servants were Slaves, owned by him as property, with this last fact before us, the language in Gen. 24; 36, would not of" mecessity^mply,, that Abraham gave away his Slaves. If he liad literally given all, then he would have had nothing to give, to the sons of the concubines. But the first inference, that his servants were not regarded as property, and therefore not given away is, we think, the correct view. If Abraham had cojisidered his servants as property, and lawfully so, why did he nat take Hager, when his wife became displeased with her, and sell her — trade her to some Slave merchant, who, like Babylon, traded in "Slaves and souls of men." — (Rev. 18: 1 1-21 . Why did he n.ot do tins instead of supplying her wants out of his own house, and sending her away to go whither she chose? If Abraham had considered the ^'bond woman" — Sa- rah's maid, as his slave, and her and her's, his property, as some D. D.'s would fain make us believe, why did he not take Ishmael, the son of his bond woman, and sell him to some slave trader, instead of giving him "gifts and sending him away.'* (Gen. 25: 6.) Had he doEie so, is there a man living that believes he would have been styled, by a justice and mercy- loving God, "the father of the faithfi4" ? — "the man doing justice and jutlgraent"? No ! no \ ^ Nor is there any evidence that Isaac considered those who followed him from place to i)lace, amidst hostile tribes, aa property: — not even so much as to give them to his sons. "Would Isaac transfer them to Esau, who had sold his birth- right?" Certainly not, says J. L. Wilson, D. D. AVhen Jacob went down into Padan-aram to seek his fortune, he went alone ; and had to sell himself as a servant for seveii, years, for his beloved Rachel. (Gen. 28: 20.) PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 29 In the schedule of his property, when he came out of Padan-aram, no servants are mentioned. Josephus says that that the hand-maids of Leah and Rachel "were by no means slaves; but however subject to their mistress." Antig. B. i. Qh. 19, §8.* When he gave gifts to Esau his brother, he gave no slaves. When he went down into Egypt, he took no slaves with him ^^Dr. Judkin to the contrary notwithstanding. The souls that went with him, were "the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob;" — his children and grand children. Gen. 46: 26- 27. Exodus 1; 5. See also Relations and Duties of masters and servants, by J. L. Wilson, D. D., p. 17, 18. Fourth and last fact. The Patriarchs considered slavery morally wrong: yes, sinful'm the sight of God. And here we will introduce the testimony of Joseph, who had some per- gonal experience in the m,atter, As a matter of complaint, — ^ a violation of his own rights, and guilt in those who had thus violated them, he says in the anguish of his soul, "I indeed was stolen away out of the land of the Hebreivs: and here also have I done nothing, tliat they should put me in the dungeon." (Gen. 40: 15.) He felt that to be taken without his consent, and forced into bondage, though done by the comynon law of the land, was theft, — a violation of his rights, which God by nature had given him; and all the sophisms of the world could not have convinced him to the contrary. All the pro-slavery men of Egypt could not have convinced him that he was '^better off,"" (when the wants of his body only were supplied,) than in a state of freedom. He had a soul to be fed, as well as a body. A soul like that of every other man, by nature, hungered and thirsted for liberty. What cared he for the luxuries of Pharaoh's table, when he could not take the wonted fare of frugal industry, spiced with the sweets of liberty! What cared he for the splendor of Pharaoh's courts, when the plains of Judea could not be roamed in innocency; and the tent, where dwelt a ♦ And if those handmaids of Rachel and Leah had been Slaves, the historic fact, that Laban held them as such, before, and \vhen he'gave them to Jacob as liis concubines^ was no more evidence that slavehold- ing was right, than that Idolatry was right. We learn from the Bible, that he was an Idolater. And if Jacob received these handmaids as Slaves, and held them as such, this would be no more evidence, that slaveholding was right, or is right, than that concubinage was, or is right; for Jacob had conciv bines. 30 PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. pious father, lived in his remembrance? What cared he lor the pageantry of Egypt's temples, where was wor- shipped in unmeaning ceremony the spotted calf, whilst the smoke of Hebron's altar was unseen; and the worship of God under his own vine and fig tree, denied him. ^' Hog and Hominy" was not a compensation for liberty. There was to him no equivalent for plundered rights, and lost manhood. And I venture the declaration, that if some of our advocates for slavery, who, with Bible in hand, learnedly and sancti- moniously plead for oppression, were for a season, like Joseph, deprived of their liberty; — their wills made to bow to the wills of others, and their bodies to toil for the luxury, the ease or gain of another; liable to be imprisoned by the whim of a wowan, or torn from their homes by the cupidity of man, they would soon learn whether slavery is morally wrong; — whether a man in enslaving can "love his neighbor ashimself" — whether he can do unto others ashe would they should do unto him. In a word, whether the Bible condemns slavery or not. Not only did Joseph believe slavery to be wrong; but his brethren who detained him, and sold him into bondage, believed they had sinned s^g^'msi Joseph, and against God:^- (not merely against their father) when they said "one to another, we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his sold, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us.'' — (Gen. 42: 21.) "What shall we speak? or how shall we clear ourselves?" ''God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants." (Gen. 44: 16.) " We are guilty concerning our brother," What, guilty when they had placed him in a land where he was ''better clothed, and better fed,'' than in the land of his choice; and "better provided for" than he would do for himself? Yes, they were; for in so doing they had deprived him o^ personal ozvnership — the foundation of all rights; — his personal secu- rity, without which all others were comparatively useless : — his liberty, the dearest of all rights. "We are guilty" in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not." What ! is it sinful — a matter of guilt to dis- regard the desires and entreaties of of a fellow being? Yes, it is; when they are lawful, and we have abdity to relieve; "for thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," says God. "God hath found out the integrity of thy servants." Patriarchal servitude i 31 Yes, man may, before his fellow man, whilst in prosperity, hide the conviction that Slavery is wrong; and "go joined hand in hand with the throne of iniquity;'* but when the hour of trial comes, and he is made to answer before God, then he will confess that Slavery is wrong. No other argument is necessary, to refute the whole system of Slavery, than this one case of the enslavement of Joseph* If it were wrong for his brethren to kidnap him, and if it were wrong for those Midianites and Egyptians to continue to rob him of his rights — his liberty, then it is just as ivrong, to continue to rob any other unoffending man, of his liberty. We are all the children of one father. The second inference dra^yn from the practice of the Patri- archs, is, that ^'ivhat they as good men did, without open rebuke from God, we may do.''^ Now if it were even really true that the Patriarch held Slaves, the record of the historic fact, without any expi'ess disapprobation of it from God, would be no evidence that Slavery is right; or that we might do as they did. The historic fact that Abraham had two wives, without any expressed disapprobation from God, is no evidence that polygamy is right, or that we may do as he did — have two or more wives. The historic fact that Abraham and Isaac practiced decep- tion, (the latter palpably lying,) to Abnnalech concerning their wives, without any express disapprobation from God, is no evidence that lying was, or is now right — that we may now practice it towards our neighbors. The historic fact, that Noah got drunk, without any express disapprobation from God, is no evidence that drunkenness is right, or that we may do the same now. Is the historic fact, that the brethren of Joseph sold him to the Ishmaelites, and thus made a Slave of him, without any express disapprobation from God, evidence that the sale of innocent men is right, or that brothers may sell their own brothers, into hopeless and returnless bondage? No! is the response of every man. Yet, absurd as is the position that we may do what the Patriarchs did, it is the main argument of the apologists for Slavery, as drawn from the practice of the Patriarchs. If then we will justify Slavery — the robbing of innocent men, women, and children, of those natural rights, which God has given to one man as much as to any other, we must M PATRIARCHAL SERVItUDE. , show that such robbery is consistent with the eternal princi- ples of justice and right: — with the principles of that law of God, by which we shall be judged. The mere example of erring men, like ourselves, is not sufficient. If then, it were even true that the Patriarch really held Slaves, it does not follow, that we may hold them. CHAI^TER IV. SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. Another Bible institution, plead in defence of American Slavery, is the servitude established by Moses amongst the Jews; as recorded in Lev. 25: 44-46, — "Both thy bondmerij 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 the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall 5^0 buy, and if their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever: but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." The argument drawn from this passage is this : — God permitted the Jews to enslave the Heathen around them :-^ What he permitted to the Jew, is lawful to us: — Therefore we may enslave the Africans. In replying to this very popular argument, we shall iiotice : — I. The points in the text, relied upoli. II. The nature of the servitude instituted. III. The design of the institution. IV. The people to whom permitted. And I, The points in the text relied upon, as proof that the Jews, by God's permission, held Slaves. They are (1.) The word "Bondmen." (2.) "Buy." (3.) " Inheritance ^?.nd Possession." (4.) " Forever." beHvitude under the mosaic economy. 33 t)o these prove the existence of Slavery? The term Bondmen does not, as maybe seen, 1st. By those passages of Scripture collated under that term in our third chapter. By examination of those passages^ every reader of English may see, that the term is applied to the Gibeonites; — a people living in their own cities, — owning themselves, — having protection of person, property and char- acter; — for the defence of which, they made alliances with Israel against their enemies. A portion of their males were reqaired by laiv, to do a certain kind of service for the temple *■ — "the house of my God." The persons set apart for this work, were called Nethinims. The jialion of people, required by law to furnish these laborers, were called bondmen. See Josh. 9: 23. The term bondman then, does not necessarily denote a Slave; — ^but one bound by law, to the performance of labor; and generally, for a definite or fixed period of time; as six years; or to the year of Jubilee. The term, as often used in the Bible, is very similar in its import, to our term. bound boy, or bound girl. The term may be applied to one required by law, to perform military duty for the good of the nation; or to the man in Europe, who may be required by law to support the church, or house of God. The term bondman, as used even to denote the service of the Hebrews in Egypt, does not mean a Slave. The Hebrews there, save Joseph when first sold, were not Slaves : — they were not the individual property of the Egyptians. As sub- jects of Government, an oppressive tax in labor was required by law, of the male Hebrews. Proof that even thejf weie not Slaves* (L) They dwelt as a separrte people in the land of Goshen. See Exod. 8: 22, Gen. 46: 34. They were not the property of individuals as our Slaves are. They owned themselves, their wives and children, and lived with them in separate families. Exod. 12: 7, 22, Acts,?: 20, Exod. 10: 23. (2.) They oitvier/ "flocks, and herds, and very much cattle." Exod. 12: 32,38. (3.) They had officers, and framed State or national laws, peculiar to themselves.. Exod. 5: 19. 12: 21. (4.) Their elders seem to have had command of their own time; as they collected from time to time, to deliberate upon national affairs, and went in associated capacities to negotiate with Pharaoh. (Exod. 3: IG. 4: 28.) (5.) Their females doubtless had their own time; and E S4 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. employed it in their own domestic aftairs. When Pharaoh's daughter would procure a nurse for Moses, she hired a Hebrew woma?i; saying: "Take this child away and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wage^." Exod. 2: 9. These facts, with others that might be enumerated, prove that their bond service consisted simply in a requirement by law, that their males should pay an oppressive tax in labor, just as the sub-* jects of the Pasha of Egypt now do, only it is not so grievous as was that of the Israehtes* But note this, even for this oppression, which was not so great as that of the Africans in our country, (for here a man may not own himself, the wife of his bosom, or child of his body,) God heard the cry of his people, and aveng-ed their wrongs, with fire that played in their pathway, with blood that rolled in their rivers, with death that brooded in their chambers. And would God teach that people whose memories were yet fresh with the visitations of his wrath upon the oppressor, to institute a system of bondage still more gallino-? — one that would reach even to the soi^l? Believe not then reader, that he designed that the word bond- man, as here used, should denote a >SJave. 2d. Every reader of the original Hebrew, knows that the word "ef/," a form of which is here rendered bondman, is generally translated servant; and denotes one ivho jierforms service for another; ivithout regard to the time for whick^ or principle upon which, he does service. The word "e^ec/," alone, does not determine the nature of the servitude: for it may mean — (1 .) One who performs of his own choice, a willing service for God: as, Christ for God. (Isa. 42: 1.) (2.) Those voluntarily doing service for their fellow men; yet owning themselves. See 1 Kings 12: 7, Exod. 21: 5. (3.) Those who pay tax, or tribute, for the support of Government. See 1 Kings 12: 7, 1 Sam. 8: 17. (4.) To designate military officers, see 2 Kings 5: 6, yet, from verse 1st, we learn that he was captain of the host of the king of Syria. (5.) As a term of respect: like our word "Sir," " Humble Servant;" as in Gen. 44: 24 and 42: 10. Yet, Jacob and his sons were residents of another country; not even the subjects of the Egyptian Government: much less the prop- erty of any individual. (6.) Those who are deprived of personal ownership, with- out their consent, before and after age: — those who are slaves; as in the case of Joseph. (Gen. 3^: 17.) SEKVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY, 35 (7.) And lastly, those who, as in Josh. 9: 34, are required hy law to perform service for the house of God, yet owning -themselves, having personal protection: — protection of prop- erty, character, — all absolute rights, — paying only, like other subjects, a tax, or revenue. The connection in ivhich the term is used, the nature of the subject to ivhich it is applied, or the kav of the lancK •only can fix the import ivhich is to be applied to if. It may be asked then; why, have our translators ti'anslated tlie word ♦'e6e<:/," by the term bondman? We answer, — from the connection, they saw tlie service to be rendered was fixed^ or regulated by law. But not therefore Slavery, as we have already seen. The term may be used also, to distinguish the relation of the "ei^f/," from that of the "s«A:ir;" or hired servant. — Miich has been «aid a1}aut these terms being used in the Bible in contradistinction; and the difference between, has been inferred, to be the relation of Slave, — and hireling. That there was a difference, and an important one, no man denies. But, that that difference was the relation of Slave, and/ree- man, we do deny. There was a difference. (1.) The ''sakir'' labored during a period, fixed not by laiv, but by special contract. He seems not to have engaged longer than a day; or at farthest, three years. See D-eut^ 24: 14, 15, com. Isa. 15: 14. (2.) He was paid daily, or at short intervals. (Deut. xxir. 14, 15.) (3.) He had no connection with the family where he labored; and might be uncircumcised.. (Exod. xii. 44, 45.) The relation of the "e&eJ," might be entirely different ; though not that of a Slave. (1.) "His term of service, (when that service was not the punishment of theft,*) was fixed by law at six years; or it might be until the year of Jubilee; as seen in Exod. 21:3, Lev. 25: 54. (2.) Instead of daily wages, he received a sum agreed upon at the beginning of his engagement. This was called "the * The Hebrews, as we do, graduated penalties according to the magni- tude of otFence: and did not arbitrarily punish all cases of theft with the same offence. Theft for an ox was punished with a greater penalty than, the stealing of a sheep. Hence, when one was sold for theft, it was until Jiis services should bring the amount required. 36 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. money of his purchase :" — see Lev. 25: 51. If a minor, the money probably went to his Father: — see Exod. 21: 7. He received also a home, food, and clothing. If he left at the end of six years, he was furnished liberally out of the flock, the floor, and the wine press. (Deut. 15: 14.) (3.) He ^vas circumcised — became a member, both of his master's family, and of the church of God. This was the condition of becoming an "e&erf." See Exod. 12: 44, com- pared with verse 48. Thus he became a Jew: — was "made a Jew;" and entitled to the privileges of a Jew. See Ester 8: 17. A bond servant then is one who is required by law to perform service for another. The master may have only a lease-hold title to his service^ for a given time; as with our bound boy, or bound girl. We now notice the word Buy. For the import of this word, we again refer our readers to our third chapter; where it is examined. The original word is Kana, Its primary signification is, to procure, to obtain: — the law of the land, and nature of the subject to which it is applied, determines the nature of the tenure acquired. Using it in its primary sense, Eve said, (Gen. 4: 1,) "I have gotten ( Kanithe) a man from the Lord." She accordingly named him Cain, (kayin,) that is, obtained, acquired. But we do not under- stand that she paid a price ; nor that there was a transfer of ownership, nor that Cain was held as property. Again, Prov. 15: 32, "He that hearelh reproof, getteth (kanah) understanding." Here there is not a transfer of ownership. The nature of the subject forbids it. Again, it is used to denote a leasehold title to service for a given period of time: as in Exod. 21: 2, "If thou buy (tith kena) a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing." Here the law of the land limits the acquisition to a leasehold title for six years. "He was not to be held as a possession, but a mere temporary subject." "You own not the man, but his service, for a limited period." Also, Lev. 25: 47-54. Here was a tenure of service until the year of Jubilee; and the servant sold himself, or his service, until the year of Jubilee. Let the reader turn to the passages and read for himself. Now this leasehold service for a definite period of time, was the service bought by the Jeivs of the ^'Heathen round about them.^^ And this ia the SllRVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 37 signification of the word Buy; as used in the text under consideration. The word is also used in a secondary sense, to denote transfer of ownership, and absolute control; as in Gen. 49: 30; where Abraham is said to have bought the field, and cave of Ephron the llittite. And also where the people are said to have bought corn of Joseph. In the latter case the nature of the subject admitted the transfer of ownership; and the laws of the land did not limit the manner of use, or time of ownership. But as we shall see, they did restrict both, in the case of the ''ebetW' — servant. Then Kana should be here rendered according to its primary import, — procure. And the reading of the 44th verse is this: "Both thy servant men, and servant maids shall be of the Heathen round about you; of, or from them, shall ye procure servant men and servant maids." Or, if we will use the word buy, then we myst use it as it is used in Exodus 21: 2, and other places, denoting leasehold property, — a claim to his service for a definite period. We use it so, when we say we have bought an Irish emigrant, who was too poor to pay his passage money. We have simply a claim to his service, until ho shall have rendered an equivalent for the money we have advanced. AVe next notice the words Possession, and Inheritance. "Ye shall take them for a possession." A living divine says this word is "invariably used to signify ownership in landed estates; not transient, but permanent possessions." Now we shall show from the word of God that it is not so.* We do not deny that possession, when applied to land, houses and the like, denotes property tenure; and may mean * The same author, (Dr. Judkins,) says the word as here used denotes perpetuity of property in man. And yet in immediate connection, he says, "I have not said it is right, to hold man as property."" "Neither,"' says he, ''as I suppose, has God affirmed it to be right.'' '-All I affirm is, that Gods law has permitted it to Israel." Reader do you bolieve God would permit, and incorporate into an established law for his people, what he knew to be wrong? for if it be not right, it must have been wrong. The Dr. says, God has no where sanctioned Slavery. But that he tolerates Slavery. '-Nov/ toleration," says he, '-implies that the thing is viewed as an evil:" and yet should be permitted in the church of God; see pam. pages 38, 43, and 71. For a full exposition of the Dr."s false positions, and false reasoning, see a review of his pamphlet on the subject of Slavery, by Rev. T. E. Thomas, of Hamilton, Ohio, 88 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. absolute control. But this we claim also, that it is often (as when applied to God and to men,) used in a restricted, and different sense. For example, see Ezek. 44: 28; where God says; ''I am their inheritance, and ye shill give them no possession in Israel: I am their possessioti.''^ Now every reader must see, that both the words possession and inherit- ance, as applied to God, cannot mean property possession in the Lord Jehovah. No man owns God. Here then we see it is used in a restricted sense. This is clear. As applied to man, neither the term possession, nor inheritance, always denote property possession. See 2 Sam. 20: 1. "We have no part in David; neither have we inheritance in the sons of Jesse." The word inheritance means, they would have no connection with David, or rather, his son Rehoboam. Again, the reader is requested to notice. Isa. 14: 1,2; where the proph- et, speaking of the return of the Jews from captivity in Baby- lon, says: "the strangers," — (the Babylonians,) "will be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob: And Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and hand maids ; " &,c. The truth declared here is, that many of the Babylonians would embrace (he Jewish religion — would cleave to Jacob of their own choice, and to do so, would have to become members of Jew- ish families, and be circumcised: — "would be induced to become proselytes; to be ivilling to accompany them to their own homes, and to become their servants there." See Barnes' comment on this passage. Here possession denotes the willing, or voluntary service the Babylonians would render to the Jews: And thus become willing "captives," or subjects to those, who were once in bondage to the Babylonians. Here the Jews did not literally capture these strangers, and compel them to involuntary servitude; but these strangers ^^ clave imto JlF;RVi[tUDE UNDER tllE SOSAIC ECOXOMV. 51 But do you again say the Slaves sold to the Jews, were captives, taken ia war by the surrounding nations? To this we reply, (1.) The position lacks one essential thing; and that i-s, proof — It is mere supposition. (2.) This is only another name for kidnapping, or man stealing — Is indeed tlie way Slaves are now kidnapped, on the eeast of Africa, And the American people, say it is l^iracy — a crime which they say*, as the Jewish law did, shali he puxisHED WITH DEATH. It is HOt, and never was right. And if the Jew did get his servants in that way, the Slaves NOW living in our land, were not obtained in that way. They are unoffending persons. The example of the Jew then, would be worth nothing to us. But, (5.) The text (Lev. 25: 45) which we have now under consideration, tells us that the Jew was not only to procure his servants £i-om the Heathen round about them, but from am-0i4gst those strangers, born, and dwelling peacefully in the land ©f the Jew. Then, when these strangers became ser- vants to the Jews, they must have done so voluntarily. And there is no evidence, that the servants who came from the nations round about them, came in any other vjay.> — Indeed as we have seen, the law of Moses forbid'S that they should come in, in any other way. Then it wsrs not only true that the Jew in becoming a servant, did so voluntarily — sold him- self, that is, his service to a given period, but the stranger did so. This is an important truth — a truth which frees the Mosaic servitude, from one of the essential elements of slavery — involuntary servitude. We tiave nothing to say against voluntary servitude. I have it from good authority, that one of the wealthiest men that ever lived in Maysville, Kentucky, was a "stranger" — sold himself, that is, his services, for seven years, that he might get to America, and have a little to start on. So a poor Jew, or Gentile might wish a home, where he could receive first, the "purchase money:" (Lev. 25: 51,) then a good home, where, as we shall see, his per- son, his rights were protected — then shielded from marauding tribes, by the "C4od of battles." But voluntary servitude, however long, is not Slavery. Again, in noticing the nature oi the servitude under the Mosaic economy, we remark: — Whether the servant of the Jew was voluntary in the commencement of his servitude or not, it is cleai- he was in the continuance of it. If it were 52 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. admitted that the servant was bought of a Heathen master, who enslaved him and sold him without his consent, it does not follow that the Jew held him as such: — a Slave because he had bought him with money. Nehemiah bought some of his brethren of the Persians; but did not hold them as slaves. The law forbade it — The context proves it. (Nehem. 5: 8.) A Hebrew might buy a fellow Hebrew, but he might not hold him as a slave. He had only a lease hold title to his service. (Lev. 25: 39, Exod. 21: 2.) * The American people have frequently bought fellow Amer- icans, who were taken captives by pirates or enemies. But ihey were not held as slaves by the Americans. And it is clear that it a Jew even bought a slave, he could not continue to hold him a slave — one doomed to involuntary servitude. The testimony of Maimonides, a Jewish Rabbi; as quoted in our third chapter, is very pertinent, and proves the position. Turn and see his words: — pa. 26, 27. From this Jewish writer this much is clear, that whether the servant bought was first subjugated by the Heathen master and sold without his consent to the Jew; or whether he was one who came from among the Heathen, and sold himself, (that is his service,) he might not in either case, continue to be a servant luithout his consent. Unwilling service, of an adult, and innocent man, might not exist in Israel. "The proselyte also caused circumcision and baptism to be administered to his slaves,! under thirteen years: those of that age or older could not be compelled.'' — Calmet. The above position may be shown again, from the rite of circumcision. Every servant (''^ehed,'" ) must necessarily be circumcised: — see Gen. IT: 12, Exod. 12: 44. If the servant refused to be circumcised, or eat leavened bread during the feast, or touched any unclean thing, and refused to be cleansed with the "water of separation," he was "cut off," — excluded from Israel. (Gen. 17; 14. Exod. 12: 19. Num. 19: 16.) * The Jew might not deem it a sin, to redeem the Slave from Slavery ^ by placing him in a bound service, where, by law, his personal safety was secured, his religious wants, and eventually his entire liberty; as in the ease of bound boys with us. In this case the Jew would not be a slave- holder; only a redeemer and guardian. I By Slaves it is evident, from facts stated by Calmet, that he means only such persons, whose service had been sold iintil they were of age, for, as he says, these when circumcised, --were entitled to all the prerogatives of the people of the Lord, as well in this life as the other."' I REUVITUDE UXDEU tllE MOSAIC ECONOMY, 53 The master could not hohla servant loithout these rites were eompJied tvith; and all that the servant need to do, in order to be from under the control of his master, was to refuse cir- cumcision; or in case of trespass upon the ceremonial laws, refuse to be cleansed. But especially on the nature of the covenant, do we rely for proof. In this covenant he chose the Lord to be his God. To compel an adult to receive the covenant, would be mock- ery before God; just as it would be to compel an individual now, to receive the rite of Baptism. — " The God of Jacob will not accept any other than the worship of a willing heart." "By circumcision to boys, and baptism to girls, each of them by this received (as it were) a new birth; so that those who were before Slaves, now became free." — Calmet. It is preposterous then, to talk about Slavery being found in con- nection with such laws. Under this head we may add these additional truths. They were required to observe the Sabbath, celebrate the various feasts, and attend three times a year at Jerusalem. Were these duties enforced by fear of pains and penalties? Were they driven from all parts of the land, three times a year to Jerusalem; and there made to offer up mock petitions in woeful jargon with the prayers of their masters; then again driven away by thousands, like beasts of burden to their fields of toil? Was this the passport to the communion of Saints? For the sake of his own, and the character of God, let no man say he believes it. Again, we prove the servitude, in continuance at least, must have been voluntary, by the peculiar opportunities and facilities they had for escape. Three time a year was every man required to appear at Jerusalem, before the Lord; and each one with an offering— see Deut. 16: 16, 17. Now in attending these feasts, many of them would be near, or quite a week in their journey up there; a week at each feast, and a week in returning. How did the slaveholders get their ten, fifty, or hundred slaves up to Jerusalem? Did they send for their neighbors to help drive them? And did they take turns by night, in keeping a sharp look-out, least any should con- clude to assume to himself the crime of personal ownership, and walk ofl:7 And if he should, were there any of those beings called negro-catchers, skulking along the defiles and narrow passes, watching for the poor man strugling for the lauded boon of liberty? And if so, will any of our pro-slavery 54 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECOXOMY; divines lell us where is found the code by which fugitives were arrested? or did the masters then as now, when a number is driven any considerable distance, hand-cuff them, and drive them amid the music of chains, to the house of prayer and praise? And when they arrived at the holy city, were they lodged in jail for safe keeping? Did the San- hedeim appoint "special service for them," and some one to impart "oral instruction?'' Or, if permitted to go at large, Were they skulking about the eves of the temple, or employed in watching the coaches and horses of their masters, whilst the masters worshipped within? And were there some men called patrollers, armed with cowhides and pistols, prowling about on Sundays and nights, least the slaves should worship in '''•unlawful assemblages,'" and later than eight or nine o'clock! Oh for honor to GoJ^ and for consistency in man, let us not suppose that such horrid paraphernalia were mingled with the worship of the most high. We do not ask such questions, because our bosoms are destitute of love for those involved in the practice of slave-holding. No, with them are linked the tenderest ties of consanguinity, and the dearest associations. But we ask them because such things are always found in the land of slavery, and are inseparable from it, where it exists to any extent: and, with the example q{ holy writ before us, (I Kings 18: 27,) for the purpose of showing the glaring inconsi'Stency of error. We might also ask, what became of the sturdy hand-maids or bond-women, left at home whilst all the males above twelve years, were gone, for two or three weeks, to Jerusalem. — Surely the tender daughters and mothers, did not stand as sentinels, day and night, to watch over those who were com- pelled to serve, in tliat land where "a very considerable de- gree of severity, in the treatment oi servants, was indulged in during the Old Testanient times*" — (Dr. Junkin.) To talk of slavery, (which includes compulsory service,) under such laws and usages, as were established among the Jews, is but to utter contradictions. Next, we prove that the servitude ainon^-st th-e Jews, must have been voluniary, because they had a law positively for- bidding the return of a fugitive. " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his mas- ter unto thee : He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in tliat place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where k liketh him the best : thou shalt not oppress him.'' — Duet, SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 55 23; 15, 16. This was a humane institution, and designed to prevent the servant from being oppressed, in body or mind. Nor will it avail anything if we, like some, attempt to escape this scripture, by saying it has reference to heathen servants, who shouid escape from their masters to the Jews. Reader, hear the words of one who has studied long and carefully the Word of God. " It is in vain to say this law refers only to fugitives from the Heathen. There is no such thing in the law, there is nothing in the connection to limit it thus, it stands disconnected to both sides, it is a positive statute and is there- fore to be strictly interpreted. Its design was to prevent all cruelty and injustice. If a servant was abused he could at any time leave his master, and serve him right in doing it; and a servant who would be base enough to run away from a good master, would be no great loss, and the statute was in all respects a good one and could do no harm to no one. God grant that there may be such a statute in every State where Slavery exists, and for the present I ask no more." Professor Stowe, belbre the American Board of C. F. M., when at Brooklyn, new York. The text cited, shows that no man could be kept contrary to his will. If he was "oppressed in any wise," he could flee to a neighboring city, or tribe; and the law protected him from being delivered up. This is clear and decisive. Do you still insist that the statute had reference to Gentile servants? Then we answer, so far as the question of Slavery is concerned, your position does not affect the argument. For if Slavery was lawful to the Jew only, and not to the Gentile, then it is not lawful to jou ; for you are not a Jew, but a Gentile. But if lawful to you, or the Jew, it was lawful to the Gentile: and if lawful, then it would have been wrong to pass a law depriving the Gentile master of the right to recover his property. But the very fact that God enacted such a law, is proof positive that he did not regard as lawful, the right of property in man — that it is wrong for man to oppress his fellow man in any form; and if there are those who will do it, then there ought to be places, and institutions prepared for the shelter, and protection of the oppressed. — Barnes says: "Assuredly if Moses had supposed that the master had a right to the slave, he would never have publicly invited the slave to escape if he could. He never would have thrown around the runaway the protecting shield of his laws." He would never have proclaimed in the face of all nations, 56 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMl'i thatUie moment when a man, who had fled from oppression^ had reached the land overshadowed by Hebrew laws and cus- toms, that moment, he was a freeman; and all the powers of the State, would be exerted to secure him from being restored to his his master." Does any man who knows the fact, that Pennsylvania has passed a late law, forbidding the fugitive slave to be delivered up to his master; and punishing any of her officers who shall do so, — does any man with this act before him, suppose for a moment that the laws of Pennsyl- vania, even tolerate Slavery? And if the legislature of that State, should in addition to their late law, append the words of God in the cited statute, requiring the citizens of Pennsyl* vania, to "let the servant that is escaped from his master, dwell with thee, even among you in the place where he shall choose," and then add, '■'•thou shalt not oppress huti:'^ — does any man suppose, that that Legislature, would be guilty of such folly as to turn right round, and pass laws allowing the same citizens to enslave — 'to practice the worst form of oppres- sion? — require the citizens to shelter the Slave from Virginia, and then allow them to practice the same thing which they reprobated in others? As long as the former statute existed, and there was humanity enough in the citizens of the State to enforce it, it would be impossible for any one man, or set of men, to enslave — that is, to enforce inuoluntary servitude. And are we to suppose that equal folly was wrought by the Divine Legislator? or that Slavery could have existed under that law, when we remember that Israel was yet a Theocracy? — that God Almighty was yet the executioner of his own laws? As well talk of icebergs in the desert of Sahara; or of the drifted snow in the furnace of Nebucadnezzar. Slavery then, could not enter the Jewish Theocracy; and if it had entered, it could not have stayed there. That God did not intend to allow the right of property in man, or involuntary servitude, is clear from other statutes. The Jew was required to return that which was property of his fellow man. (Exod. 23: 4.) If he saw the ox, or ass, even of his encmi/, going astray, the law of the land made it the duty of the Jew, to return that property. But the fact that God forbade that the servant should be delivered up, 'that was escaped from his master,' is evidence clear as a demonstration, that God did not recognise the right, of 7nan^s oianership of his fellow man; for if the servant was the lawful and righteous /)ro/;er/y of his fellow man, whether the owner be Jew or Gentile, it SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 57 would have been wrong to withhold, that which was lawful property. But no ! it never was lawful to enslave ; even if Slavery was an "organic sin," — sanctioned by long estab- lished laws and customs, — whether the servant had been oppressed by Jew or Gentile. God here made a law in direct, and immediate contravention of the wicked laws and customs of men. This passage strikes a death blow to Slavery, take it either way you will. It destroys the property tenure in man; the very heart of Slavery. It destroys also involuntary servitude; the life's blood of Slavery: and man can no more exist without heart and blood, than Slavery can without prop- erty ownership in man, and involuntary' servitude. The two essential elements of Slavery did not exist in the Jewish ser- vitude. Therefore that servitude was not Slavery. In the language of Dr. Beecher, "it wasn't Slavery, it is mockery to call it so." 2. The next element, which we notice in the nature of the Jewish servitiade, is that each servant had security of person, secured to hina hy law. As an example, see Exod, 21: 26, 27, '"If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish ; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his man servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake," The servant having voluntarily bound himself by law, to labor for a term of years — for six, or to the Jubilee, as the case might be; and the money for that service, having been paid, as in Lev. 125: 46-51, — ("He shall give again out of the money he was bought for.") — if the master should inflict upon him personal injury, then the servant went free from his obligation, and the master lost the money and service, as a punishment for his passion and cruelty. 'Moses frequently delivered general laws in the form of particular examples; and although here, only the eye, one of the most valuable organs^ and the tooth, one most easily dispensed with, are mentioned, yet it is clear that all other organs of intermediate value are included; and mutilation in every form is forbidden on penalty of losing the services of his servant, though he might have paid a sum of money for his services to a stipulated time.' The master then, was punished for any maltreatment of the person of the servant. The above statute, together with the statute in Deut. 23: 15, 16, released the servant from such a master, thereby punishing the master for such offence, and secured the servant agains^t a second infliction of maltreatment. The person of 5B SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOJFT^ the servant was as sacredly guarded as that of any other per- son of the nation; whether he was a Jew, or a Gentile; for he might be either. "Ye shall have no manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country." Lev. 24: 22. *' But the stranger that dwelleih with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as- thyself." Lev. 19: 34. "Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow: and all the- people shall say, Amen." So sacredly guarded was the per- son of the servant, that the master was put to death as quick for the killing of a servant, where there was evidence of wilful murder, as for the killing of any freeman. See Exod. 21: 12-20. Read these passages. Also, "Whosoever killeth any person, the murderer shali be put to death by the hand of witnesses * * *. More- over, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer,, he shall surely be put to death. So shall ye not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein^bat by the blood of him that shed it. (Num. 35: 30-33.) Under this head of personal security we may notice the cruel perversions that have been given to the 20th, and 21st verses of the 21st chapter of Exodus. "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished" — i. e. with death, according to the above rule, (ver. 12th). "Notwithstanding," (or but,) "if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished:" (i. e. - with, or to the amount of death,) "for he is his money." — {Some suppose that this passage teaches, that among the Jews, Slavery existed, — that man held his fellow man as property, disposed of at pleasure like other property; and because of this property claim, the master was not to be punished if he killed his slave. Now this passage means no such thing; and is a plain case, as every person may see. And, (1.) Every man knows, that in the sight of God, it is just as wrong to kill a slave as a freeman. "He that sheddeth man's blood (whether slave or freeman) by man shall his blood be shed." "Thou shalt not kill." "He that killeth ANY man shall surely be put to death;" whether the object of rage be bond or free; is the command of God. Our civil law recognizes the act as criminal, as the slaying of a free- man ; and if enforced, would assuredly inflict the same penalty. ^ERVITC'DE TINDER TIIH MOSAIC T-COKOMY. ^^ (2 ) The Jewish law, like ours, looked at llie iRtention of an act; iudging of it by circumstantial evncVence.-.- See Num.. 35- 20-23. Deut. 19: 11. There, if the manslayer used an "instrument of iron," or "a stone," or "a hand weapon ot ^vood-" and "if he thrust him with hatred, that he die, he was adjudged a murderer; the circumstances provmg an mtent AokiU. But in the .present ^ase, the master could not be Teffarded as a wilful mWdercr. He had not intent to kdU as sppears first, froi^ the fact that the servant did not die uiider his hand. Had he intended to kill him, he would have boat him to death at 'once. Secondly, the kind of instrument /Bmploved favored the same conclusion. Hail he used "an .instrument of kon," -or "a .stone," -or "a hand weapon ot wood," instead of a ^^rod,'' ( ^heb^t—smuW stick Isa. 28: 27 ) there would have been evidence of intent to kill. 1 hircily, the servant "was his money;"— not literally pieces of sdver; but the source of money: and for the services of whom he had paid money. It was considered improbable that a maa would destroy "his own sources of gain. Then the phrase ^'his money," is here used, not to teach that the master had a r-iaht to beat to death his slave, because he was his money, .qor even a right to punish him with a "very considerable xleo-ree of cruelty," but as circumstantial evidence .that the master had not intent to kill, and should not therefore be punished; that is, ivith death. _ Now, this will appear clear, if in die examination ot the passages collated, we notice, ^ ' /I.) The master was pwtto death for killing his servant, it there was evidence of intent to kill; as is clear from verse 20, af this same chapter. " If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished, or avenged, (as the original Hebrew means ;) and the correction is found in the margin ot your Bible. And why punished with death? Because the fact of the servant dyino- under his hand, shows intent to kill. The position is also made clear from Lev, 24: 17. "He tliat kiileth any man shall surely be put to death." Also, he that smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to deatlL" Exod. 21: 12. This verse precedes those two verses under consideration, and is the basis on which the latter are built. It is the general principle laid down, of inilicting death for death. And least any mi«Tht suppose, that the life of a servant was cheapenccj bj the fact that he was a servant, God, blessed be His holy (50 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECOXOMY. name, sedulously guarded the servant's life against passion and danger; and in the 20th verse, declares again that the same general principle of death for death, shall be enforced; — there being evidence of intent to ktll. But in the next verse he says, if the servant "continue a day or two," with other circumstances showing that the mas- ter had not intent to kill, then he shall not be punished, with death, according to the general rule previously laid down. (2.) He was punished for any cruel treatment of his servant. This is clear from verses 2& and 27, where the master was punished with the loss of his servant,, if he so much as knocked out his tooth, or maimed his body in any way. It is not true then, that "a very considerable degree of severity, might be practiced by masters under Old Testament times." The law did not so much as tolerate such a thing; (verses 26 and 27,) but immediately took the servant from a master who should inflict the least eruelty upon his servant, and punished him in so doing. Deut. 27: 19. Lev. 24: 22 prove also that he was punished. Then in the 21st verse, by the phrase he shall not be punished, it is manifest we are to understand, that he was not to be punished tmth death, according to the preceding rule, on account of the circuTnstmices proving that he had no intent to kill: and not because his slave was his rrioney. — Think you reader,, that God would require the master to be- punished for the small ofl"ence of knocking out a tooth, and then let the master of the same servant go unwhipped of jus- tice for manslaughter? — for mangling'to such a degree of cruelty as to cause death? Such a license would not be sur- passed in cruelty by the bloodiest days of Pagan Rome- Such a perversion would make God a monster of cruelty, and His holy word a license for crime. Carry it out now, and any man whose services are bought for a time, or for life, whether he be black or whtte> may be best even to death for any whim that may infest the breast of an irresponsible master.* We have dwelt on the above passage, because we know it is a stumbling block to many. Under this head we may notice another passage supposed by some to be a license for compulsory, and rigorous servitude. It is Lev. 25: 23.. " Thou shalt not rule over him (i. e. a poor, afflicted Jew, * The servants in those days from the "nations around," differed not m color from their masters, only that they were a little whiter; for the Jsws had just come up out of Africa, into Asia. SERVITUDE rXDER THE MOSAIC ECOaOMV. Gl reduced by some misfortune to povert}^ — verse 39, and had to sell himself for a sustenance for himself and family, — ver. 41,) with rigor but shalt fear thy God." Because it is said here that no one should rule over the poor Jew with rigor, it is inferred (1), that they might rule over the poor Heathen ser- vant with rigor; and (2), because the law was not to hold tlie poor Jew as a bondman, but that he should be to his brother Jew as a hireling or sojourner, it is inferred tliat the bondman might be held as a slave — property, worked without consent. In reference to the first inference, it is like the Jews in the days of our Saviour, inferring that they might hate their enemies, because the law required them to love tlicir neigh- bors. Or, as though one should now infer, that he is justified in cursing his friend, because the Saviour said, "pray for them that despitefully use you." Because we are enjoined to bestow mercy upon one poor man, it does not follow that we may heap oppression upon another who is equally innocent. And the Jew knew it when he was commanded, "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in Egypt." In reference to the second inference, drawn from the 40 tb rerse, because the poor Jew was an adult, and not a minor that he might be bound; and because he, to get bread to eat for him and his family, had sold himself, (for so the original word renhnkar imports; and he had no crime but that of being poor, having fallen in decay, and might not be sold by the judges,) and because he is required not to be held subject ta his master's house-hold as a bound servant is, but permitted to be with his family for their good, and thus be like a hireling or sojourner; and because he might receive daily wages as a hireling, forthe wants of his poor family, does it follow that one who is held in a different relation, must therefore be a slave; and, without any compensation for his toil? Let us try it. My neighbor is a blacksmith? he has a boy bound to him: he also wants a house built, or fence made. He hires a car- penter to come and work for him. Every night the carpenter returns home to his family, having received his daily wages, and with it provides for the necessities of his family The bound boy stays, — is subject to the rules of the family, — is required to do all domestic labors, — learns a trade, — is educa- ted. At the end of the bond service receives a set of tools, horse, saddle and bridle; and being mounted, rides ofT free as- the air that bore on its bosom the sweet toiies of the Jubilee, fi-J SERVITUDE I'NDrn THE MOSAIC ECONOMY, Docs it follow that because during his bond service, he sus- tained a different relation than that of the carpenter, that he was therefore a Slave? Every body says no ' Nor does it follow, that because the bondman sustained a different relation than that of the poor Hebrew, that he was tlierefore a Slave; as wc have, and shall yet further show. And if it be true that no Jew might be held in the relation of a bond-servant, still it does not follow that the relation of a bond-servant must therefore be that of a Slave. The passages first cited, show that personal security was secured to the servant: the objections raised do not militate against the truth, but harmonize with it. And thus every part of God's word maybe made to harmonise with his character, which is love. Think not then, dear reader, that the Bible is a throne from which we may receive power to enslave man; a forge where we may find chains to bind him; and a store- house where we may gather rods to beat him. No! the God of the Bible loves his poor; and has evinced It in bis holy word. And when his professed ministers come to you, with hands wreaking with blood, and Bibles labelled with oppression, hear them not. They are mistaken prophets: '♦crying peace, peace, when there is no peace." And whilst they would "sew pillows under the armholes" of some, they bind chains upon the hands ot others. 3, A ihird element which we notice in the Jewish servitude, is that the bondman had secured to him by law, more than ONE-THIRD of lils time for religions purposes. If they remained until the year of Jubilee, they had: (l.j, Every seventh year; — sexeii out of fifty. See Lev, 25: 3-6, (2d.) They had every seventh day; as most of ours get. (Exod. 20: 10.) (3d.) They had at the feast of the Passover, seven days. (Deut. 16: 3-11.) (4th.) They had at tlie feast of Weeks, seven days. Deut. Id: 10, 11, (5th.) They had at the feast of the Tabernacles, eight days. Lev. 23: 34-39. All the males were required to appear at these feasts, in the place where the Lord should choose; which we. know was Jerusalem, (Deut. 16: 16.) The going to and from these feasts, together with the time spent at them and in preparations, would consume for each feast, from two t0 three weeks. To this may be added the feast of Trumpets; SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECOXOMV, 63 of new moons, and the Atonement day. Now, it we add totrether the time as above shown, we shall find that the bond- man had more than one-third of his time for religious purpo- ses; and consequently absttnance from toil for his master^-— Some compute twenty-three years out of every fifty. To the above may be added numerous local feasts; such as those of marriacres, and of circumcision, of covenants; all showing, that even as a bond service, it was the mildest ever regulated by law. Let there be a law passed, requiring our slaves to be held to the same kind of service as the Jewish bond servant, and Slavery will soon cease. Property tenure in man, and involuntary servitude, will not be known. None would be found going to the Bible for a system of Slavery. Men, already, with our present heavy exaction of labor, without allowing the slave a week to celebrate the glory of God, or a month for education, are beginning to see that slavery is without profit. Those of the remaining Canaanites, on whom Solomon is said to have "levied a tribute of bond service," (1 Kings 9: 21,) who were national servants, had still more of their time-— two-thirds. "A month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home." I Kings, 5: 14. And even this exaction was without sanction or authority Irom God. 4. Another right secured to the servant, was the right to acquire and disburse property. Facts will show that this ricrht W2is protected by law; and not a mere gratu.ty of the m'^aster, as with our Slaves. The case of the servant recorded in Lev. 25: 47, is in point. Here we are told that the servant sold himself, and in verse 51st, we are told he might, accord- ing to the statute of the land, redeem himself "ought of the money that he was bought for." This money he must have owned, and that under protection of law, or he could not legally have redeemed himself. And remember, this money was not earned by the consent or permission of the master; nor was he redeemed only with the consent of the master;-— the law provided, that so soon as the servant could transfer to the master an equivalent, he should go free from obligation to farther service. Ziba, the servani of Messhibosheth, gave to David when he was fleeing, asses, a great quantity of head, and fruit for his army. The same Ziba had twenty servants; and with these tilled the land of Messhibosheth. (2 bam. 9: 9-12.) Elisha seems to have expected Gehazi to have ex- pended what he received from Naaman, as his own;— for •'olive-yard^, vineyard?, sheep, oxen, menservants, and maid^ 64 servitude: UxNder the mosaic economy. servants." (2 Kings 5: 22-26.) The case of the servant as rGcorded in Math. 18: 23-35, has been employed by some, to prove the existence of Slavery. But this is the plainest case possible, to show that the servant was not a Slave, but a freeholder. The servant says to his master or employer, *Miave patience with me, and I will pay thee all." How could the servant do so unless he was a freeman, that he might accumulate means with which to pay the debt? Again, the fact of his suing those who were debtors to him, is evi* dence that both were recognised as freemen, having rights of property secured to them by law: — otherwise they might not sue, and be sued. But he, and his fellow servants, were recog- nised in law as property holders. 5. They had a right to religious instruction. This was secured to them by law. This was the business of the "Le- vites who went about through all the cities of Judah, and taught the people." 2 Ciiron. 17: 9. See also, Deut. 31: 10-12. Josephus says the servants were included with the rest of the people. See Ant. B 4, ch. 8, s. 12. Is this secured by law to our servants?— Or is there in some of our States, laws forbidding that the Slaves shall be taught to read even the word of God, under heavy penalties ! and in all Slave States a custom, forbidding their instruction. We make them to have "eyes and see not:" — aye, ears and hear not, even on Sabbath, when too often their services are demanded at home, either to cook, or to take care of the stock, 6. The Jewish servants were members of the families where they lived; and partook v/ith them in all their festival occasions. See Exod. 12: 43, 44, Deut. 12: 12, 18 — As David who was servant to Saul; see 1 Saml. 16: 21, 23 com- pared with 22: 8. Great trusts of honor, or business, was often entrusted to their hands; as in the case of Abraham's servant, who was sent to select a wife for Isaac. In a word, they w^cre members of the family, living in the same house, partaking at the same table, and at the same feasts, just as bound children now are. And this is the condition, or relation 'of servants now in Asiatic nations. Lasdy, entire liberty was secured to them. * Whether *The object of the Jubilee was not, as I suppose, so much to release servants from obligation to service, as to revert lands to the original owners; ■jhus preventing monopolies,which are gererally injurious, and would then have proved oppressive. The Jubilee vs'as also a great religious and national festival, and as such, all ought to observe it. Hence no engagements were SLRVITUDE CNDER THE MOSAIC EC0N031Y. bS» this bond service ended at tlie eiid of six years, (they all being circumcised, and thereby adopted Jews,) or whether it ended at the year of Jubilee, certain it is, that at that time, all who were bound went free. Lev. 25: 10. " Ye shall proclaim liberty throughout all the land, ami ye shall return every man to his possession, and every man to his family." In either case, the master only had a lease-hold title to service for a limited period of time. Property tenure in man, one of tho elements of Slavery, did not exist. In all these cases we see most clearly that the servant or bondman was regarded as having natural rights; and these rights were equally guarded and protected with those of the Jew, both by specilic and general statutes; and we close this point, by noticing some of these general laws. "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for one of your own coLlntr3.% Lev. 24: 12. "The stranger that dwelleth with you, shall be unto you as one born among you; and thou shalt lt)ve him as thyself," Lev. 19: 34. "Cursed be he that per- verteth the judgment of the stranger." " I will be a swift witness against those that turn aside the stranger from his rights." xMal. 3: 5. Now, many of the bond servants were of those strangers: — "That do sojourn among your ' * * ' which they begat in your land." .(Lev. 25: 45.) Yet for these, as for the Jewj there was one law. Now if the Jew had a right to liberty, a ri had hired one of his subjects, who is called a servant,— douhs. But Dr. Junkin says, "this doulos must have been a Slave, and the master a slaveholder, or we cannot understand the transaction.'* The servant clearly was not a Slave, as may be seen, (L) From the fact that he said to his lord, "have Tiatience with me 2^nd I will pay \hee all'*— ten thousand talents. He must have been a free property holder, other- wise he would have had no means to pay, though his lord should wait with him. (2.) This servant having "begged day," went away and cast his fellow servants into prison, Mntilthey should pay him what they owed him. The fact of his beino- a creditor, is evidence that he was himself a Iree properly holder, that might sue and be sued (3.) If he was a Slave, what would his lord or master make by selling his own m-operty? Can a Slave become a debtor of ten thou- sand talents to his master? and if he does, can the master recover that debt, by selling him. as the absolute property oj another man? Every man must see the absurdity. Can my horse— my property, become a debtor to me? and if he does, will I get my debt out of him by selling hira to another man^ The truth in the case can be very easily shown. The Sa^viour was a Jew, and speaking to Jews he would use Jewish customs to illustrate his truths, such as were famil'.ar to them. The servant, as Barnes very properly suggests, was a cohector of revenue. Grotius says, "all the king's subjects^ and especially his ministers, were called his servants. bee i . ju-. Thomas. It is certain the servant here spoken of, was a debtor; a thing which property cannot become. A.ccording to a custom among the Jews, a creditor could seize a debtor, or his children, and sell them for a season, until the usot was -.'.--i S-e 2 Kings 4: i ; Amos 8: 6. - " Weil, says Dr. Juiiiiin, "if the servant was not a Slave before he was sold, he was after." Unfortunatelv for the Dr., this refuge fails K a IMPORT OF WORDS IN THE NKW TESTAMENT. also: for, first, he was not sold at all. His lord had compas- sion on him and forgave him the debt." And second, if he had been sold, the Dr. lias admitted that he could be sold only for six years, that is, his service. See his paaiphlet on slavery, pp. 30, 31. If tiie servant sold had been made a Slave, the fact that the Saviour alluded to him, would be no evidence that the Saviour intended to sanction Slavery, but the opposite. The very object of the introduction of the parable was to show that men ought to forgive, and noi be like the king or his steward. The trutli is this : The servant spjken of, was a subject, acting as an officer, in the employ of his king; and according to a custom of those days, was called a servant. Again, Ephesians 6: 9, "And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening;- knrowing that your master (Kurios) also is in heaven; neither is there tespect of persons with him." Now, if Kurios, — Master, in all these cases means slaveholder, then the defim-tion, when put in the place of the word, will convey the same sense or idea as the Word itself; if the definition be correct.- If no^t correct, it will not. Let us try it. Notice the above reading, as it stands in the New Testament. Now adopt the one with the definition given by pro-slavery men; and it will be thus: "ye slaveholders do the same things unto them, (your slaves) forbearing threatening, knowing that your Slaveholder is in Heaven." What! dear reader, is it true that there are slave- holders in Heaven? — A being, or beings, who hold others as "chattels personal in the hands of their possessors" — held without their consent? Can yon believe this? Plainly then, Kurios, the word commonly translated master, as here used, does not mean Slaveholder. Nor does doulos as here ased, mean Slave. Then, when you meet with the term master, in reading the Bible, you are not to understand that it always means a slave- holder. It is often used simply to denote a teacher; or a householder; one having an oversight over others; as a guar- dian over apprentices or bound boys.* It is used to denote a ruler or King, having one or more of his subjects in his employ. It is also used simply as a term of respect and civility. At the time our present translation of the Scriptures * In New England and other Uo.e States, they use the term master now, to designate those who are guardians and teachers of bound boys. '^Tid Ji.pprraticc-. See Life oi Normnn Smith, by Ih-. IIa\\'C»^. ni^OUT OF WvHha IN THE MOV TLSTAMtNT. HH was made, ihe word was used witii this general signincntion, aad as the popular way to translate Ktirios, despofcs, and other words; and would have continued to be used in this general sense, was it not that Slavery has degraded it.* TEACHING OF CHRIST. We come now" to the direct argument. And 1. It is claimed that Christ recognized the relation of master and slave: referred to it in illustration of his doctrines, and did not forbid if. In answer we reply: There is no evidence that the Saviour ever met a case of Slavery. (1.) There is no evidence th hardly probable? that tlio attendants on Roman oHicers' would be SJa\-cs."' — Barnes. ' TEACIIINO or CHRIST. i. V, ... ... , ^,'.iicy of Rome to let each nation'enjoy its pecuiiar form of Government, and the Jews maintaining their volun- mry bond-service, as we have shown, in accordance with it, the Saviour says, "The servant abideth not in the house for- ever: but the Son abidelh ever." John 8: 35. The servant went out at t.ie end of six years, or at the Jubilee, according r.s he had bound himself to serve. If the servant had been a slave he would have abided as long as the son: "yea, longer ■ — as long as he and his family existed. But the very fact that the service was temporary, shows that iiwas not slavery. The case is clear, forcible and pertinent. So the other para- bles used by the Saviour, in which servants are alluded to, show that the service was not that of Slavery. In the para- ble -of the Prodigal Son, we are told that the servants were "hired servants." In the parable of the vineyard the master ■went out and 'hired servants at every hour in the day'; and paid them for it., The case of the unjust steward we have shown was not that of Slavery. Where servants of. Kings are alluded to, as in the marriage feast, there is no evidence that they were slaves; whilst on the other hand we know that it was customary to call officers of the Government, assisting the King, servants. There is not a single case that will ■prove, that Christ met with a slaveholuer. (2.) Were it certain that the servants alluded to by Christj were slaves, still, the fact that he alluded to them, in illustra- tion of spiritual or moral truths, is no more evidence that he recognized Slavery as right, than the fact that he alluded to the unjust steward, (Luke 16: 18,) is evidence that he recog- nized DECEPTION, AND DISHONESTY, AS RIGHT. Read the ICXt referred to. (3.) The. mere fact that we have no record of Christ call- .ing Slavery by its specihc nam.e, and forbidding it as sin, is no more evidence that he considered it lawful, than the fact that we have no record of his specifically speaking against gambling, piracy, counterfeiting, persecutions, &c., is evidence that he considered these as lawful and right. On the same ground v/e may infer that Christ approved the horrid massacre of infants by Herod; because we have no record of his spe- cific denunciation of the act. We know not how much Christ and his Apostles preached against specific sins. We have but a very small part of their preaching and teaching recorded. John, using the language of hyperbole, says : — '.'The world itself could not contain the books, if all that he John, 21;^5. The Na^v ^o.........^ is not ?. volume of ths cr^rmons and discourises of Christ a^ his Apostles against spoCJtic sin?: but chierly, an outlin#of their history; and the genera} principles taught by them. But Christ ^ J '■> 5>~ ^e Slavery in the jp.ost effeciive manner, by laying do vi ^c7;J -.7/ precepts which forbid Slavery, and every other fcrm of oppression. This is the Bible rnelhed of opposing most sins. Had it? '■;ulhor framed a. sneciSc description of, and denunciation for every specific sin, or form of wrong, the Bible would have been so hirge that no man would have been able to read it, in order to know what is wi-ong. And second, specific statute may often be avoided; but general precepts or principles, never. Hence the Saviour comes, not only as he said, to fulfil the moral law, which as we liave seen, torbids Slavery, but that no social wrong may escape; and that all men may have a plain and intelligible rule, he says, "Thou shalt love ihy neighbor as thyself." Luke 10: 27. And "Whatsoever ye would others should do to you, do ye even so unto them.." Matt. 7: 12. Now, no man can be a willing slaveholder, (as distinguished from a gu'ardian or redeemer,) without violating these plain precepts. And we need no other argument, with which to oppose Slavery, or any other form of oppreasion. All this talk about loving our neighbor as ourselves, by buy- ing a slave and holding him in a better condition, but still as a slave, is a mere heartless subterfuge, "an inoperative con° science plaster," based still upon selfishness and oppression, as we shall show when we come to answer objections. If I am able to buy the slave, I am able to free him immediately; * and then be as rich, or richer than he will be. When the sarly christians bought slaves, they bought them not for the purpose of showing their christian love by holding them still as Slaves, but for ihe purpose of freeing them immedi- ately, t We said Christ did forbid slavery, in the most effective manner, by proclaiming the precepts, " Love thy neighbor as thyself." and "Whatsover ye would others should * Or very soon, holding him only to a "bond-service, with a deed of eman- cipation recorded — guarantee in will, &c. + Such persons are properly called redeemers, not slaveholders : see Nehemiah 0: 8. "We alter our ability have redeemed our brethren ■^-^hich ^vorc soid unto the Henthen."' 86 TEACHING OF CHRIST. do unto you, tlo ye even so unto them; for this is tlie law and the prophets/' "This rule," says Dr. Rice, "requires us to treat others, as we would reasonably expect and desire them to treat us, if we were in their aituaiion.'" As it was shown him, the question to be settled is, whether the golden rule allows the slave to be put in the condition of a slave. Con- cerning those first enslaved, he says they were ^^unrighteously enslaved by others;" and surely it cannot be right in any man to continue, or even tolerate an unrighteous thing. Then, (2.) Does the golden rule allow us lo continue to enslave those already enslaved?^' Let us try it. Suppose the En- glish land upon our shores a superior force (for slavery is a system of force, and can exist only by force,) and take "us whites" capatives — enslave us, and sell us to the French. — The French as a nation adopt the Christian religion; the foundation principle of which is "Thou shall love thy neigh- bor as thyself." "Whatsoever ye would others should do unto you, do ye even so to them." Now, would we reason- ably "expect, and desire" them to give us our liberty? We had done no harni; our forefathers had done no harm; as innocent, beings we had been "unrighteonsly enslaved by others," — would we 'U'easonably expect and desire" them, as Christian men, to give us our liberty? Every man knows how he would decide, were it his own case. No man is willing to be held as a slave— rhave his body, his mind, his time, his labor, his wife, his child, his religion — all that dis- tinguishes him as a man, usurped and controlled by another: and if slavery is right, then to enslave man as man, is right, irrespective of color. But, says one, if men's desires are to be the standard by which tliis rule is to be interpreted, then, any poor man may demand of me a part of my farm, on the ground that if I were in his place I would wish him to give * A minister of the Gospel, living in Alabama, writing to the Editor of the New York Evangelist, says : "The influences of religion are gain- mg ground, and as they gain ground masters treat their servants better in dress, and grant them more Christian privileges. And this is not all: owners begin to feel that Slavery is a sin. A few wicked men, (slave- holders,) have said to me at different times, that they did not see what business Christians had to come here and buy plantations and negroes, intimating that there is, in their estimation, a glaring inconsistency tetween Religion and Slavery. They justify themselves in Slaver}^ becau&e they do not profess to obey the Bible, They say a man cannot do to otlur? ax he u-nidrJ that thcij should do ie him. and hold slaves.'' fEACHiNG or CIlRlSt. SI' to me. To this I reply, he has no right to desire his own aj^grandizement at the expense of anothers lawful gains. — Tliis would be violating another command which forbids us to covet any thing that belongs to another. The meaning of the rule is, "|A11 lawful things whatsoever ye would others should do to 'you do ye even so to them." Now, to desire liberty is lawful; for liberty is the natural state of every jnan:— as Wesdy said, "the birth right of every man." — And to desire another man to rive him his liberty, is not coveting that which belongs to another, but that which by nature belongs to himself; for as an innocent man, he has done nothing by which to forfeit it. " No man then can wil- fully enslave his fellow man without violaating this plain precept of Christ: and "sin is the transgression of the law." Then we need go no farther to know whether the New Testament forbids slavery. And whatever isolated passages we may hereafter find, that may seem to tolerate slavery, we may be sure that such apparent toleration, arises from our ignorance of the design of tlie writer, or of the truth concern- ino- these passages: for it cannot be that the specific precepts of'Christianityrwill violate \is fowl elation principle. This would be an inconsistency reproachful to man, much more so to God. Further, this precept requires not only that the slcveholder shall let the oppressed go free, but that the non-slavelioiderj whether he be North or South, shall also plead and lah-^r for the ricrhts and welfare of his fellow man — both slave and masted'. If we were involved in the darkness and and difficul- ties that many masters really are, and if we were bowed down under the yoke of bondage^ as is the poor slave, we would wish, yea, "reasonably expect and desire," those who know the truth — (have the right and means,) tc speak, to plead and labor for our deliverance. Then every man and woman, whether slaveholder, or non-slaveholder, whether East or West, North or South, in Europe or America— every soul in Christendom, has some hing to do with slavery. _ Patriotispi has no territory for neutrals to stand on. Humanity will own no one who has not a soul to feel for another's woes. Christi- anity will reject the man who disregards the rights of man, and denies his Savior in the person of his fellow— "the least of one of these my brethren." For, at the day of final retribution the Savior will say: "I was an hungered, and ye gave mc no meat: I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink: I ■v/^s L stranger aiKi ya tcok ms net brna-Ls:i un:i ye cbthed' m? not: sick, and in prison, and ye vifiited me not. Then c:-,a}l they also answer him, saying, Lord when saw we thee an : Jhgered, or a athirsi, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in Taison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, inasmuch as ye did it not to .;ne of the least of "38, ye did it not to me And these snail go away into evelusiing punishment, but the righteous into lifeeternaL'* Oh! fellow Iiian thou hast something to do with Slavery .— The iirst principles of right — of christir-rriy, require, not only that we shall not enslave, but that we shall labor for the oppressedy as we would, were the person of our Savior hhri' self enslaved. Remember this, and <'If then thou hast truth to utter Speak it boldly, speak it all." -Christ suffers. There are other teachings of Christ, which are directly against Slavery. In the outset of his preaching he said: ^' The spirit o^ the Lord is upon me, because he hath annoin» ted me to preach the Gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the lord." Luke 4: 18, 19. These v/ords as Barnes suggests, were spoken by Isaiah, 61: 1, in reference to the delivery of the Jev/s from Babylonian oppression, and also as applicable to Christ at his coming. The Saviour assumes them as appropriate to him- self — that he had come to preach against all oppression; — and, alluding to the year of Jubilee, (which as we have seen, was the year of release to all) he says, "to preach the accept- able year of the Lord." To evade the force of these truths, some say the words are to be understood only in a spiritual sense. We reply, it is manifest-and acknowledged, that they are literal as well as figurative or spiritual. That he preached the Gospel to the poor v/is literal, as well as figurative. That he opened the eyes of the blind, v/as literal as v/ell as figura- tive. That he comforted the broken hearted by bringing to life their departed dead, was literal as well as figurative, and that he has really preached deliverance to the captives and set at liberty them that are bruised, is literal as well as figu- rative. It was the Gospel of Christ — the doctrine of equal love to our neighbor, — of doing to others as we would they should do to us, that prompted the early Christians to expend their estates, ag we shall see, to buv slaves from Slavery. It TEACHING OF CHRIST. 8d was the Gospel of Christ that had almost entirely banished Slavery from the whole of the Roman Empire when it was overrun by the hordes of Northern Europe. It was the Gospel of Christ- that moved the heart of the Mistress of the seas of the present day, and bid her proclaim liberty of body to eight hundred thousand in one day. It is the Gospel of Christ that has been feeling about the hearts and opening the h:mds of the American people ever since they have had an existence: — and now whilst as by an eye of faith it points to a throne of eternal justice and final retribution, it is still saying to the trembling soul, "Break every yoke, aild let the oppressed go free," "Remember those in bonds as bound with them." And of the millions that have been freed from the thraldom of literal slavery, it will be found that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the prime moving cause of literal freedom was the Gospel of Christ. And blessed be God, the apologists for oppression themselves being judges, the Gospel will yet literally banish all Slaver3\ Thus the Princeton Repertory speaking of the principles of the Gospel says: "It is also evident, that acting in accordance with these jninciples would soon improve the condition of the Slaves, would make them intelligent, moral, and religious, and thus work out the benefit of all concerned and the removal of the institution. For Slavery, like despotism supposes the actual inferiority and consequent dependence of those held in subjection. Neither can be permanent. Both may be prolonged by keeping the subject classes degraded, that is, by committing sin on a large scale, which is only to treasure up Wrath for the day of wrath. It IS only tlie antagonist fanaticism of the South which main- tains the doctrine°that Slavery is in itself a good thing, ancj ought to be perpetuated. It cannot possibly be perpetuated." So, Dr. Fuller: "In process of time Christianity seconded the humane workings of this system," (that is a system for the protection of the^Slaves: — done in the second century, and doubtless prompted in the first place by Christianity) "and infused its mild and benevolent spirit into the institution (that is of slavery as I infer from his book) making it quite a dif- ferent thing'' — As when you put an alkali into an acid, it makes it quite a different thing:— That is, it destroys it. Says Dr. Junkin: "Manumission was often practiced in the Roman and Grecian world. Paul advises the servant, if the master offer to manumit him to accept his freedom with gratitude,— use it rather." 1 Cor. 7: 21. JVhen Grace touched the mas- L §0 TEACHING OF CHRIST. ter's heart, and especially if his conversion, as doubtless wa^ often the case, was brought about by the patient and quie! obedience and manifest improvement of his converted slaves,- it cannot be doubted, he often freed his servants. ^'When the Grace of God:'' — yes, when the spirit of God pressed the soul with the obligations of the Gospel and filled the hear! tvith the true foundation principles qx precepts of the Gospel, love to God and love to man, (Math. 22: 37-40) "then the master freed his servants." Would to God this Gospel was more generally preached. And O that ministers and people would declare the tchole Gospel and not keep back a part of the price — precious price ! paid by Heaven and sealed by the blood of Jesus. Then would come to pass the precept and saying of Christ: Be not ye called Rabbi (master): for one is your Master even Christ; and all ye are brethren. Such a Gospel was and will continue to be opposed to al5 Slavery. And Christ did oppose Slavery. ' ' CHAPTER VH. DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDERED; In the preceding chapter, we were engaged in showing tha! slavery, built as it is upon the principle that one innocent mait may be compelled to be the property of another — his powers of body and of mind — his means of happiness consumed for the interest, and controlled for the benefit of the master, is direcdy opposed, and forbidden by the principles of that Gos- pel, which requires us to "love our neighbor as ourselves," and "whatsoever ye would that others should do unto yoa, do ye even so unto them." Now let it be remembered, that this position is admitted by almost all. The critic, the theo- logian, the mechanic, the scholar, the moralist, the statesman, — almost all, with one consent, ad^nit that Slavery is wrong, and as such the priciples of the Gospel are opposed to it. Dr. Junkin says, "we are opposed to Slavery, and are doing as much in our respective positions to abate its evils as our brethren are." Pamp. p. 12. Dr. Rice says, the first enslave- ment of man was an ynrigltteous thing: "what is our duty to a class iinrighteoushj enslaved by others?" Debate pa. 81/ DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDEREP. 91 *»Far from defending tlie African slave-trade, we abhor and denounce it as piracy. We, therefore, maintain, that Amen- can slavery ought never to have existed,'' Debate, page 26. Dr. Fuller in his letters to Pres. Wayland says: "You must already have perceived, that, speaking abstractly of Slavery, I do not consider its perpetuation proper, even if it were possible:' Pa. 157. Princeton Repertory says: ''The con- sequence of acting on the principles of the Gospel, of follow- ino- the example and obeying the precepts of Christ, would be°the gradual elevation of the slaves, in intelligence, virtue and wealth; the peaceable and speedy extinction of slavery . Vol viii. p. 304. Stuart says, "Paul himself gave precepts in abundance, which, if obeyed, would bring all Slavery ere lono- to an end." Says Scott, in his Comment: "Ihe prm- cipfes of both tlie law and the Gospel, when carried out, infallibly abolish Slavery." , .r rr. . Says Barnes, "No candid reader of the Psew Testament, it is believed, can doubt that the principles of Christianity are opposed to the existence of Slavery." Says Clark, "In Heathen countries Slavery was in some sort excusable; but amoncr Christians it is an enormity and a crime, for whicti perdition has scarcely an adequate state of punishment. Wayland, in his Moral Science, says, "The moral precepts of the Bible are diametrically opposed to Slavery. Said Jefferson, in view of Slavery: "I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just." Said Henry Clay, iij a colonization speech in 1827, (referring to those who would suppress all agitation of the Slavery question,) " It they would suppress all tendencies towards liberty and ultimate emancipation, they must blow out the moral /i^A/s around us, and extinguish the greatest torch of all which America presents to a benighted world, pointing their way to their ris;hts, their liberties, and their happiness, Phey must pcmetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love of liberty. Then, and not till then, when uni- versal darhiecs and despair prevail, can you perpetuate Slavery, and repress all sympathies, and all humane and benevolent efforts among freemen, in behalf of the unhappy portion of our race who are doomed to bondage. Here is one creneral consent that Slavery is wrong, and as such the princtples of the Gospel are against it. Go throughout society, and in our everyday intercourse with men, the admission is the same. 92 DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDERED. Now, this is enough. For, if the principles of the Gos- pel are opposed to Slavery, then the practice of the Gospel must be opposed to Slavery. Hence, when tlie Apostles go out into practical life, we are not to expect to find them giving any specific precepts, in violation of the plain principles of the Gospel they preach; — they teaching by inspiration of Jesus. This brings us to notice the second argument for Slavery, as drawn from the New Testament. It is this: — "The reciprocal duties enjoined upon masters and servants, are such as recognize Slavery not to be sinful, but a lawful relation." duties OE SERVANTS. Turn to the texts cited at the beginning of the New Testa- ment argument. Let us notice, first, the duties enjoined upon servants. Tliey are these: patience, obedience, long-suffer- ing, fidclity, honesty, reverence. These duties were enjoined upon servants in general f whether they were minors, persons bound for a season, or Slaves. To say they were addressed to slaves only, is to leave all other servants without any instruction. To say they were' addressed to minors, and persons bound for a sea- son, is to leave slaves without any instructions. Also these duties are obligatory upon all persons under government, so long as they remain members of that government. But it was necessary that the Apostles should address them to ser- vants, because : 1. There were judaizing teachers, who, looking as they did upon Gentiles as dogs and idolaters, tauglit that obedience to the government of such, was not the duty of any person, whether servants or not. And especially, that it was not the duty of Christians, having now become the servants of Christ. The Apostles' instructions were necessary to correct this error. 2. The duties enjoined were such as Christianity from its very nature must enjoin, though slavery be wrong. These virtues are Christian virtues, essential to the perfection of Christian character. The opposite vices, hatred to masters, dishonesty, fretfulness, insubordination and pride, would have been wrong in these Christian servants, even though their masters were wrong, and the aggressors. Further, servants were especially liable not to exercise these virtues. They "^:ere generally ignorant, and as such, were liable to be gov- DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDERED. 03 erned by passion, and not by reason or principle. They were generally poor; hence, temptations to unfaithfulness great. They were uTiderthe command of others, who, having a little authority, are very apt to abuse it, be mandatory, whimsical, and tyrannical. Even if they are not, servants not seeing as they do, are liable under these circumstances, to hate their masters, be fretful and insubordinate. This would be wrong. Their very condition in life, then, made these injunctions of the Apostle necessar}^ though the power exer- cised over them may have been wrong. Again, individual retaliation and insubordination are wrong, because of their effect upon the individual and society. In the very attempt to get what he supposed to be right, he would lose it in the midst of anarchy and bloodshed. Hence, so long as an individual remains a mernber of that societyj he must leave the adjudication of his wrongs to society. Also, by this course, God would be glorified, and the Gospel of his son Jesus honored. Hence, under all these circum^ stances, it was the duty of the servant to exercise those virtues essential to his own spiritual welfare, the peace of society, and glory of God, though he might be unlawfully oppressed by his master. He must do that which is right — exercise Christian virtues and acts, though his master is doing wrong. This position is abundantlj illustrated in the Scriptures. In Matt. 5: 44, we are taught that though "our enemy hate us, despitefully use us, and persecute us, yet tve are to love him, do good unto him, and pray for him." The injunction to this obedience and the exercise on our part of those Christian virtues, does not for a moment justify the course of our enemy. Again: we have specitic teaching concerning this principle, in the case of a servant. In 1 Peter, 2: 19, 20, where the servant is commanded "from conscience toward God," to be "obedient; and though he may do well, and suffer for it, yet he is to take it patiently, and endure grief, suffering wrongfully." He is not to be filled with hatred and thereby become in heart "a murderer," (1 John 3: 15,) but to exercise Christian feelings, and pray for those despitefully using him. But does the injunction to the exercise of these Christian virtues, justify the course of the oppressor? for it is here declared that he ''suffers lurongftdJy'' Certainly not. Take another example; Matt. 5: 39, "Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also:" that is, "Ye shall not resist evil." The Jews had arrogated to themselves 94 DUTIES or SERVANTS AND PIASTERS CONSIDERED. the prerogative of adjudicating, or avenging their own wrongs — taking eye for eye, and tooth for tooth — a privilege belong- ing to God, hut delegated to judges, or society: — compare Deut. 19: 18, 21, with Lev. 24: 16, 19. Individual retaliation or revenge was wrong; and injuries of the character specified, not involving life or conscience, were to be left to society to adjudicate. But does this injunction to obedience, and patience, justify the wrong smiting? Certainly not. Again, the Apostles enjoined upon Christians that under persecution they should be submissive, patient, and forgiving; "returning good for evil." But does this injunction to labor for the good of their enemies, and to be submissive, patient, and for- giving under injuries, prove that these fellow, free Christians, and the Apostles, were the property of their enemies, or especially that the Apostle intended thereby, to recognize the practice of the persecutors, as right? Assuredly not. This is clear and very much to the point. Then Christianity may enjoin upon us the exercise of the christian virtues, obedi- ence, patience, and long suffering, though individuals and governments may be oppressive and wrong — yea, sinful in their practice. Further, these injunctions are not without limitation. (1.) They do not require that we shall do immoralities. The obedience enjoined upon servants, is "in the Lord" — "doing service not unto men, but as unto the Lord." When Nebuchadnezzar said to the three Hebrev/ children, "bow down and worship the image," they felt that they must obey God, and not man. When the government said to Dauiel,he must not pray to his God, he believed it was his duty not to obey; and prayed as formerly with "open windows." When the Sanhedrim said to the Apostles, that they must no more preach in the name of Jesus, they replied, "we should obey God rather than men." The principle taught is, that there are commands, both of individuals and governments, which it is not our duty to obey. Conscience, religious liberties, may never be invaded. (2.) The duties enjoined do not imply that a man is always to stay in a government thus oppressive. Otherwise, the children of Israel should never have left Egypt. Otherwise, our Pilgrim Fathers should have remained under oppression in old England, and never have come to Plymouth Rock. Otherwise, the early settlers of Kentucky, who were seized by the Indians — carried into bondage, and held there as DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDERED. 95 property, should never have left those who held them, but remained, in all cases, under an oppressive government. Every man sees clearly the force of these cases; and if it were his own case, he being thus oppressed, would know in a moment how to interpret these commands. Then, whilst the Scriptures lay down, as a general rule, that "every man abide in the same calling wherin he is called," yet, Paul him- self makes an exception, and says to the servant, "if thou mayest be made free, use it rather :" or, all ei kai dunasi eleutheros genesthal, mallon chresai; "but if thou art able to become free, use it rather." It is clear that a man is not to stay in all cases, in the same calling or business in which he is called to be a Christian. John Newton did not consider that this injunction required him to continue to be a kidnap- per. A man may be called to be a Christian, being a dram- seller: Is he to remain in this calling? A man who is a farmer, or mechanic, may believe he can serve God better in the min- istry. Must he in literal obedience to this injunction, remain a farmer, or mechanic? A man, who is a merchant, believes he can serve God better by going to England, or India. Must he obey this injunction literally? — stay here as a merchant, or go there as a missionary? Every man says, it is his duty to go where he can serve God the best. These commands then are never to be so construed as to prevent a man from peace- fully withdrawing to a place, or profession, where he can serve God better. No claims of man, or society, may con- travene those of God, or of conscience. And one command or duty, must not be made to destroy another. (3.) All this will appear still more clear when we remember that the duties required by the Apostle, are not urged on the ground of the master's claim of property in the servant^ but upon the ground of duty to God — "doing service as to the Lord, and not to men," — "for conscience toward God," — • "that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." "Servants be subject to ?/oin' masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wronfully. For what glory is it, if when ye are buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiendy, this is acceptable with -God." Here the servant was admonished to be subject to their master's ivith all fear. But this fear^ 96 DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDERED. as Bro. Brisbane has properly siiggesled, was not of the mas- ter, but of God. In those things enjoined upon them to perform, they were to be watchful, and not do any immorality: — they were to be careful in all that they did, to do it with an eye to the Glory of God. They were not only to be thus watchful over their actions in laboring for good men, but especially they would need to be thus watchful how they per- formed the things required by the "froward" masters, who would often not regard religious duties; and as the servant was liable to be punished by such masters if they persisted in trying to do that, which would be pleasing to God. There would be a strong temptation to do whatever was commanded by froward masters, rather than be subject to punishment. This view is greatly strengthened by the iact, that it harmon- izes with the succeeding words: "When ye do well and suffer for it," (that is, chastised for doing your religious duties) "ye take it patiently, this is acceptable to God." Now for me to sit tamely by, and suffer a band of robbers to take my prop- erty, or nial-treat my person — violate my natural rights, I do not suppose this could be said to be "acceptable to God." But if I am a member of a Government, formed for the purpose of protecting natural rights, and where my rights are generaUy protected, j^et if that Government should require me to do an immorality, or an inipious thing, and I should be watchful over all my acts, and be careful not to do any thing which would be displeasing to God; or was diligent in doing those things which I supposed to be pleasing to God, and a *'froward" master, or Chrisdess Government should chastise or punish me for so doing — for "doing well," and I should take it patiently, this would be "acceptable to God." So it was with Daniel and the three Hebrew children. The above view is strengthened by the fact, that the Apostle in giving like instructions to servants at Ephesus (Eph. 6: 59) said iri immediate connection: "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." Here the masters were to do the same things, act "with fear and trembling in the instruction or management of their servants, least they do things displeasing to God — least they should be unjust in their exactions, or be tempted to impatience instead of "long suffering." Such instructions bf the Aposde of duty toward God, certainly does not in any Vay, imply the right of property in the servant, even if the DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDERED. 9? servants addressed were slaves. If, then, a servant, in the language of the Aposlle, is able to become free, let him "use it rather." If not, let him be patient, peaceful, obedient, long suffering, even though he '•'■suffer wrongfully.''^ And yet, the injunction to the exercise of these Christian virtues, does not for a moment sanction the course of his oppressor or his enslavement. He may be required to bear it with patience, just as the individual smitten on the right cheek, must not resist, but bear it patiently. (4.) If the fact that servants are commanded to be "subject to their masters," proves that masters had a right to hold their servants as slaves, then the fact that Christians were com- manded to be subject to the "powers that be" (Rom. 13: 1,) proves that the requirements of Nero and Bloody Mary, were right; and Christians were to submit to them as being right. No one we presume will claim this. Then you may not, the former. Obedience in the Lord to civil Government, is right; but tyranny — despotism, always was wrong, whether in a Nero, or in a slaveholder; and every man knows that Slavery, is tyranny and despotism of the most absolute form. (5.) If the servants addressed, were Slaves as pro-slavery men claim, and if the fact that they are commanded to be . obedient (in the Lord, doing service as to the Lord) proves, that Slavery is right, then it proves that the Slavery of that age was right; "in which the master by law, had the power of life and death over his Slaves. Food and clothing depen- ded upon the will of the master. — The old and infirm were frequently turned out to die, when they became burdensome. Even Cato adopted this custom. Obedience was enforced by severe discipline. The rod, the whip, thongs, scourges loaded with lead, chain-scourges, the equaleus, lyre strings, the ungula and forceps, the rack, throwing from the capitoline rock, mutilation, crucification, burning alive — were the instru- ments and modes of punishment employed. Vedius Pollio, fed his fish with the flesh of his Slaves." But do you say the Apostle prohibited these abuses — these cruelties, but allowed the relation of master and slave to exist? We demand the proof. Where is the prohibition of these cruelties? There is no more prohibition of these cruelties, than there is of the relation itself. Do you say the Apostle commanded masters to give to their servants that which was just and equal; we answer — This as much required them to give the Slave entire libertv, as it did that the master should give proper 31 9S DUTIES or SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDERED. food, clothing and compensation for labor; for liberty is a« much a natural riglit as any of these; and a right far more precious to all men. Then if the Aposile sanctioned Slavery at all, he sanctioned the cruel Slavery above described — the Slavery of his day. Yet even Dr. Fuller himself tries to evade this. And so does Mr. W. E. Channing. See Prince- ton Repertory, 1836, pa. 278, 280. But do you say that Slaveiy like the conjugal and parental relations, is right, but the cruellies or abuses allowed by the Roman law were wrong? We remark, this too is an assumption. If you should say that liberty, like the conjugal and parental relations, was right, then you would speak correctly. For the conjugal and parental relations, are natural relations, and are therefore right. So liberty is the natural relation of man, and therefore right; and even Dr. Rice says, '"the first enslavement of man, was an unrighteous thing." Just so far as the Roman law allowed the husband and parent to violate the natural relations, — (the conjugal and parental,) it allowed that which was wrong. And just so far as it allowed any of its citizens, to violate the natural relation of man — liberty, it did that which was, and 25 wrong.* So then, starvation, maiigling, and murder is not *The words of C. M. Clay in his reply to Mr. Rice on the above points, are so pertinent and forcible, that they ought to be read by every eye: "Mr. K.. says;" '"Tlie question is not, whether the laws by which slavery is regulated are just or not? For by that rule the conjugal and parental relatioiis are in themselves sinful!'' "Lot"s strip him againl Now "we both agree that man is by natv.re, free; that being nature then is not einful. Again: marriage is by nature, we both agree, a right relation ind^jjcncfent of law, and of course not sinfuL Now the law takes hold of the free man and makes him a slave — which Mr. Rice admits '"to be a crime of the lirst magnitude.'- Where then is the crime? In the law, of course! — repeal the law and the crime ceases — the injury ceases! Now, once more the parental relation and the marriage relation, was a good and pure one: but the Roman law comes in, says Mr. R., and gives the lather power of life over his child, and the husband power to degrade and tyranize over the \\ife. Indeed ! what is the remedy? Repeal the laws giving the improper power, mid its conjugal relation, and the paren- tal relation is not objectionable! But now mark the culminating point of the sophistiy! Therefore, marriage, parental, guaidianship, and slavery are not in themselves sinful! It should have been stated thus: Therefore the marriage and the parental relation and liberty are not in ihemseh es sinful ! For just so far as the law touched liberty at all, as well as the marriage relation, it contaminated it. It laid its foul hand upon the freeman, and degraded hun into a. slave. It laid its foul hand upon the husband and changed his love into brutality. It laid its ioul hand vipoii the parent, and he iorg^ot the jathxr by becoming a master. "We PUTICS OF SERVANTS AND MASTER^ COXSIEARSE, t i> that alone which is a violation of nature, but slavery — priva- tion of liberty is also. Tlien the injunction to patience, obedience, and long sufi'ering, does not lor a momeni sanction Slavery. Whilst then, the servant may bear with paiicnco and obecHence his wrongs, he and his Iriends, and friends of the master, with kindness and meekness, may endeavor to show the master his duty, and entreat him to the performance of it. This will bring us to notice the duties enjoined upon masters. DUTIES or MASTER?. They weresuch,as in conjunction with thelcading doctrines of Christianity, made it the manifest duty of the masters to free their slaves, (if slaves they had.) Christianity had ah-eady taught the world, that "God had made of one blood all nations of men," Acts 17: 26. •'That of a truth God is no respecter of persons." Acts 10: 34, "That among Christians one is your master even Christ AND ALL YE ARE BRETiiREX." Math. 23: 8 — That tiiey had one common Redeemer. And, if Christians, one common home, Heaven. These principles being taught, the Apostle, after having enjoined upon servants to act, in their service, with conscience towards God — with fidelity, honesty, and with long suffering to their masters, adds: "and ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threating: knowing that your master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." Ephesians 6: 9. And, "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal." Col* 4: 1. Now, what is ''just and equal"'? This question shall not, for the present, be decided ehher by anti-slavery men, or pro- slavery men: but by the civil law, or ourcourts of justice. — What do they say is justice to a white servants? for Christi- anity makes no distinction on the ground of color; and the servants, or slaves, in the days of t!ie Apostle, did not generally differ from their masters in color. Our courts of justice say: (1.) The servant shall have kind treatment, with plenty of good food and clothing. (2.) He shall have that amount of say then with Mr. Blanchard the Iav>-3 are the basis, the bone and sinc^v the flesh and blood, of ISlavcry; dissolve them and slavery falls, — natiral right is untranrjmelled and the thing -'in itself is not sinful'' lecavreit is no more.'' Mv. Rice's argument is snbstantiail y the argument of W. E. Channing, about the parental and gove:nmentcl jelation. See PiIncQ'ca Ropertory 1S30. pa. 27b'. 100 DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIEERED. instruction, whicli will fit him for efTiciency, and usefulness in society. (3.) When he has attained the age of a freeman, he shall then go free, that he may engage in business for himself: for all this the good of society, and glory of God requires — This, then, is what our courts of equity, and the mass of mankind with one common consent, deem justice, and right. Then, tlie Apostle may be considered as saying:' Masters, with conscience before God, acting as you would to the person of Christ, (Matt. 25; 40, and 45;) act towards your servants with fidelity, patience, long suffering, forbearing even to make unhappy their condition by threatening; and when they are "of age," give them their liberty, with a compensation for their toil: — what you would others should do unto you, were you a servant. This is ^'justice and equalitif in the eyes of (Christianity. All this talk about food and clothing being justice and equality, to the adult Slave, is so palpably false, and absurd, that I wonder that any man, laying claims to integrity before God and man, should utter it. If the free white laborer can just/y earn mcreihanhis food and clothing, then the slave, who labors as hard or harder, can earn more than food and clothing. What means this seventy-five, or a hundred dollars, which the hirer pays to the master, besides food, clothing, doctor's bill. etc,, for a year's labor of the slave; but that his labor is worth that much more than food and clothing? Do you say the master has paid some hundreds of dollars for him. Then we answer: If the master did not pay it to the servant, who rightfully owns himself, then he paid it to the wrong owner; and the servant ought not to be deprived of his liberty, his natural rights, and a fair com- pensation for his toil, because of the bad management of the master. It is clear then, that justice and equality to the servant is more than food and clothing- It is also clear, that if any one of the primitive Christians did hold slaves, they, in obedience to the principles taught by Christ, their Saviour, and the plain precept of tlie Apostle, could not hold them as slaves wiihnul sinning against God and man. Further, in 1 Cor. 7: 21, the Apostle says to servants, "art thou called, being a servant, care not for that;" that is, be not more anxious about your condition in this world, than your spiritual condition. The expression is like thatin Matt. 6: 34; •'Take therefore no thought for the moirow." This does not littcrally forbid that we shall make any provision for the inorrow, but this: "seek first the kingdom of God" — be not DUTFES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDERED, 101 SO much concerned about the things of the morrow, or this work), as your soul. So in the present case, the Apostle says to the servant, be not more solicitous about your personal liberty than the salvation of your soul: you can be a Christian if you are a slave and oppressed. He does not forbid him to desire libert}'; for he immediately adds, that it is his duty to use it, if he can: "If thou mayest be free, use it rather." Now, note this: The Apostle has here decided that liberty is a BETTER STATE FOR THE SLAVE THAN BOXDAGEi Then let nO man ever say, against holy writ, ' that slaves are as well off as if they were free." Novv^ comes the point. The Apostle having decided that freedom is a better condition than bondage, every master who would obey Christ, in loving his neighbor as himself — do unto others as he ivoidd others should do unto him, and obey the precept of the Apostle, "masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal," was religiously bound tn give liberty to his slave, if he had one. If the servant was a hireling, the master should give him a fair compensation for his toil. What was then true, is true now. Then, the precepts given to both servants and masters, are such as give no tolerance to slavery; but in the language of Scott, they are such, "if obeyed, would infallibly destroy it." PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS IN THE FORM OF OBJECTIONS. 1. It isobjected, if Christianity gives no tolerance to slavery, why did the Apostles tolerate slave-holders in their com- munion? We answer this is a point not proved, and by consequence, not conceded. The evidence relied upon, is mere verbal criticism; which, in the language of Dr. Bishop, "must be very inconclusive reasonin/ as t) historic matter of fact. The texts relied upon in support of the objection are Eph. 6: 5-9, 1 Tim. 6: 1, 2 and the Epistle to Philemon. We will examine the texts, in the above order. Eph. 6: 5-9, "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sin- gleness 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, wheth- er he be bond or free. And ye masters do the same things unto tliein, forbearing threatening; knowing that your master 102 PRO-i-LAVKRY ARGUraENTiS is in Heaven; neither is there respect of persoxs with him." If ii he claimed, as is usual, that the word masters (kuriois)in v 5, means slaveholders, then on the same authority in v. 9, the clirislian master (kuriosj means slaveholder: — i. e. the merci- ful (lod holds slaves — persons in involuntanj servitude. Every- man must know that this is not true, and by consequence noth- ing can be inferred from this text in favor of slavery, because these servants had masters. This term as we have shown, is often used to designate householders, employers, guardians or teachers. The word servant (doulos) as we iiave shown also, does not of necessity mean slave; and that these servants were; not held as slaves, is clear from the fact that the masters were required to act towards the servants as the servants were re- quired to act towards them: — "Ye masters do the same things to them," — act with fear and trembling before God, fearing least ye displease him by doing any injustice to his creatures, remembering that "you have a master in Heaven," who will "mele to every man as ho measures to others;" for "he is no respector of persons." Here was the masters example and rule. But if he should hold his child, in what is called the ordinary free relations, and the child of another person as a slave, would not that master be a respector of persons? If the master should hold one man's child as a bound boy, until twenty-one, and the child of another as a s/ot'C, would he not be a respector of persons? If the master should give to ono servant, as a hireling and contractor, that which was just and equal — a full equivalent for his labor, and then hold anollier servant (because he had on his side the advantage of human and unjust law,) a slave — held to involuntafy and unrequited toil, would he not be a respector of persons? No man then, as we believe, could fully obey the above precept, and hold 'an- other as a slave. This text instead of sanctioning slavery, we consider a powerful one against slavery. We do not believe that a primitve christian master, with this precept be. fore him, any more dare hold a fellow-being as a slave, than he would dare steal his preachers coat — the only coat of a beloved Paul or Timothy. Nor do I believe christains would dare do so now, were they free fi-om fiilse teachings — perver- eion of the Bible by man. The next text in order is, 1 Tim. G: 1,2. "Let as many serrants as are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God ar.d his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them notdc^pice /Aew, becauf-e they arc brethre.'i; IN THE rOIL"»I or OBJECTIONS. lOS but rather do lliem service, because they arc faithful and belov- ed, partakers of the benefit." That tlie servants addressed in the tirst verse were slaves, we think is most probable; and that their masters v/ere heathen masters is a point not denied; for if they were not, and were ciiristian masters, tlien there would have been no danger of their "blaspheming the name of God" even should their servants not honor them. This is clear. And that the servants of believing masters, address- ed in the second verse, were not slaves, is, we think, equally clear. 1. They are contrasted with those in the first verse.-— ♦The greek word de, which w^e translate and, or, but, is used to mark an anti-thelic sentence' (Stewart's Gr. Gram. § 150, 5.) Again the phrase, "Let as many servants as are under tke yoke" &c. — This evidently implies that there are some servants (doulous,) not under the yoke: just as the expression, in John 1: 12. But as many as received him, &c., implies that some did not receive Christ." Mow there was no pro- priety in this contrast, unless there was a difference in the relation or condition of the servants. 2. The two classes of servants are designated by different phraseology. The notes of Bro. Brisbane on this passage, are so pertenent and forcible, that we shall insert them and ask special attention to them. "Paul says. Let as many servants as are under the yoke, ihsi\ is, let all the servants in the church, actually under the government of their masters count their own masters Avorthy of all honor. And why? Because, if they do not, their masters will blaspheme the name of God and his doctrine. But christians would not blaspheme; con- sequendy the masters of the servants "under the yoke," must have been unbelievers or Pagans. The deduction is clear, that christians did not have servants under the yok« But Paul then addresses 'i'imothy concerniug another class of ser- vants. What class was this? Mark, Paul did not say in the first instance, Let as many servants as luive unbelieving jnas- tern, but he left it to be inferred that they were unbelieving masters, from. the condition of the servants themselves; they were under the yoke. What then was the other class of ser- vants? Why, those that have believing masters. But were tliese under the yoke also? If so, why address them thus? Had he not already said as many as were under the yoke should count their own masters worthy of all honor, and did not this include the masters of all those under the yoke! 104 PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS If it did, then why, after telling them to honor their masters, add that they must not despise them? This would be super- fluous. But the plain inference is, that this other class of servants were not under the yoke, and this is left to be under- stood by the mere consideration that they had believing mas- ters. And they, says he, that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren; that is, because their masters are their brelliren, and consequently have not authority over them like other masters have over their ser- vants; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved brethren, who are partakers of the benefit of that ser- vice." 'J'his phrase, "partakers of the benefit," lends, as we believe, additional evidence that the servants of these christian masters were not held as slaves, but as freemen; — they were partro.kers — sharers in the products of their own labor. Some suppose tliat the phrase "partakers of the benefit" means that the masters too v.'ere with the slaves, sharers in the Gospel blessing — sharers of the special grace of God. However true it might be, that the masters v/ere sharers of the Gospel blessings, this is not, as we suppose, what is meant by the j)hrase as here used. As McKnight correctly observes, the Greek word ^'cuergesia, benefit, is no ivherc used to denote the Gospciy The word is here used to denote the service of the servant — products of his labor; So Whitby in loco. And so Clark renders it. The Greek word which is here correctly rendered ^^partakers,''^ comes from a word which as Robinson shows, means "to take part in." Clark translates the whole phrase thus: "joint partakers of the benefit" — i. e. products of labor. '1 hese masters were not monopolizers, but sharers with the servants in the benefit of the service, — treating them according to the ordinary free relations of life; and thu» doing to others as they would otliers should do to them; and obeying the Apostle when he said, "Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal." No otlier course, as we have seen, would be just and equal.* But does the objector say, 'servants treated thus would not be under any temptation to despise their masters: that their * And if these servants were held by christians under the yoke, tliis fact would be no evidence that these christians were doing r'.ght; for God had said by the mouth of his prophet "break every yoke and let the oppressed go free.'" That Slavery always was oppression every body knows. And if christians were practicing it, they were doing wrong. But wc don't believe thcv did. IX THE FOliM or OBJECTIONS. 105 would be no necessity for such an injunction to freenien; and therefore the servants addressed must have been slaves?' — We remark (1.) your objection necessarly presupposes that there is something in Slavery which would naturally provoke a man to despise his oppressor. But if it were a natural and righteous, or lawful relation, then there would be nothing in it to provoke a man to despise his enslaver, more than in a state of freedom. But your objection necessarily presupposes that there is. — It is therefore wrong; and at the peril of your soul you are bound to quit it immediately; for tfie Apostle says: "It is good neither to eat flesh, not to drink wine nor any thing wiiereby thy brother stumblelh, or is offended or is made iveak.^' "For when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience ye sin against Christ." Rom. 14: 21, 1 Cor. 8: 12. But (2.) whilst freedom does not, like slavery, occasion haired, yet it is possible for persons in the ordinary free rela- tions of life to despise even those who are their benefactors. Hagar, (who could religiously and devoutly cry, "thou God seest me,") so soon as she was raised to the condition of a wife or concubine, despised her mistress. This promotion too, was done by the suggestionorimportunity of Sarah. Yet Hagar was tempted to despise her benefactress. We all know instances of men who have been raised suddenly from the condition of poor apprentices, to rich freemen, whose vain hearts elated with promotion, pass scornfully the friend who taught their hand the skill by which their wealth and promotion were secured. These are facts, against theory. Then those treated as free- men, might be tempted to despise their benefactors. And especially if their present masters or employers had once been their enslavers. For this, they might yet be tempted to despise them. If persons shall yet honestly insist that the fair inference from the language of the Apostle is, that the servants to chris- tian masters were servants under the yoke — were slaves, we reply: if they were regarded as slaves, by the civil law, and still in the service of heir former masters, it does not follow, that christian masters held them as slaves. The persons freed by christian masters, would remain with their former masters; for the Roman law made it difficult, and often impos- sible that the slave should be regarded by the civil law as a freeman. — See Gibbons' Rome, vol. 1, eh. 2, and Biblical Repository, vol. 6, pa. 411-36. In this respect some of the N 1()6 PRO-SLAVER V AROIMENTS servants of christians might be "under the yoke"- — the restric- tion of the Roman law, yet not held so, so far as the claim of the christian master was concerned; just as the slaves eman- cipated in South Carolina hy the Quakers, though held in the eye of the civil law as property — as slaves, still they were not so h^ld or regarded by their former owners."^ In the case of the primitive christians, as in the case of the Quakers, the law of Christ forbade the existence or practice of Slavery. And the christian servant was not to despise or feel revengeful towards his master, because he had once been enslaved by that master. This would be wrong; and injurious to the spiritual welfare of the servant. There was then, propriety in the injunction of the Apostle, though the servant was not held as a slave by the christian master. And if the law of the land gave them uninterrupted privilege to go from under the care of these christian masters, still being, as we have shown, mutual partakers of the benefit — the products of their labor, it was best for these servants to stay with such masters. As persecuted and despised masters for their profession of Christianity, it would be diflicult often for them to get help; and christian servants ought to feel an obligation to labor for such masters. The above thought, distinguishing between the claim of the Roman law, and the claim (or no claim) of the christian master, may perhaps be found valuable. Pro-slavery men fall into a great mistake by interpreting the words master and servant, as used by the Apostle in addressing Christians, by our own Slave laws; or by the Slave laws of Greece and Rome. They infer that because the Apostles use the words master and servant, (despotes and doiilos) when addressing little groups of Christians, governed by the law of Christ, that they meant by these terms property holders of men; and ?nm held -as property — slaves; because this was the import of the terms in the Roman law. As well might they infer that when the Apostle spoke of the wife and child (giine and teknon) of a Christian, that the husband and father held that wife and child as slaves; exercising over them the power of life and death, because the Roman civil law allowed him the power to do so; and so far as the record goes the Apostle never once said this was wrong: — that Christian Jathen and husbands must not exercise this * And there wag not found injustice enough in the community to enforce the law and make the servants of those Quakers again slaves. IN THi: FORM or OBJECTION'S. 107 power. The words of William Hague, in his review of Wayland and Fuller, are very pertinent. "In all these exhi- bitions of the scriptural doctrine, we doubt not that there is a cardinal mistake; and that mistake is in defining the relation denoted by the words "servant" and "master," doulos, and kurios or despotes, by the law of Rome instead of "the law of Christ." In the community of Christians this latter gov- erned all relations. For unto whom were these three epistles of Paul and one of Peter, which contain the passages referred to, originally addressed? To the world at large? No. To the subjects of the Roman empire, as such? JNo. To men, as men and citizens? No. They were addressed to little com- munities of Christians voluntarily united as churches, as those who were "called to be saints," "the faithful brethren in Christ;" to those who had "come out from the world and been separate;" to the regenerated, baptized, and sworn sub- jects of the Messiah's kingdom; to those who had received, as their first lesson, the doctrine that, unless they could wil- lingly give up, "houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands" (or servants), "for their Lord's sake, they were not worthy of him." Before the epistles were written, all these persons had risen above the level of the Roman law to a higher moral realm, wherein Christ swayed a sceptre of sovereignity; unto whom, looking up, they could say, with the voice of a common adoration, in response to his own announcement to them: "Thou only art our master and all we are brethren." Such laws and such a change modified at once all the then existing relations of life — "held forth to their view a new doctrine of right, a new standard by which to judge of all the duties pertaining to the connections in which they stood. That this case is true and just, will appear further, if we consider how greatly a knowledge of the law of Christ modified a Christian's sense of duty touching the other permanent relations of life. It is certainly an error into which many have fallen, to dis- cuss this subject as if, by the law of Rome, the right of slave^ property inhered only in the relation indlccded by the words master and servant; whereas it pertained as really to the relation indicated in the New Testament by the words goncus and teknon — parent and child. Any sehool-boy may learn the origin of this domestic slavery from the first chapter of Goldsmith's History of Rome. It is clear, not only from Cicero, in his treatise on the laws, but from nearly all the 108 PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS RomLiii writers, historians, and poets, that every father had the power of life and death over his children — could expose them to death in infancy; and not only so, but a child was not deemed legitimate, or treated as such, unless the father took it formally from the ground, and placed it on his bosom* Dr. Adam, in his Roman Antiquities, presents the following statements : "Even when his children were grown up, tlie father might imprison, scourge, send them bound to work in the country, and also put them to death by any punishment he pleased, if they deserved it. Hence, a father is called a domestic judge or magistrate, by Seneca. A son could acquire no properly but by his father's consent; and what he did thus acquire was called his peculiiim, as that of a Slave. The condition of a son was, in some respects, harder than that of a Slave. A Slave, when sold once, became free; but a son, not, unless sold three times." In his history of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon remarks: "The ex- clusive, absolute, and perpetual dominion of the father over his children, is peculiar to the Roman jurisprudence, and seems to be coeval with the foundation of the city. The paternal power was instituted or confirmed by Romulus him- self; and, after the practice of three centuries, it was inscribed on the fourth table of the Decemvirs. In the forum, the Senate, or the camp, the adult son of a Roman citizen enjoyed the public and private rights of a person: in his father's house, he was a mere thing; confounded by the laws with the moveables, the cattle, and the slaves, whom the capricious master might alienate or destroy without being responsible to an earthly tribunal. The hand which bestowed the daily sustenance might resume the voluntary gift ; and whatever was acquired by the labor or fortune of the son, was imme- diately lost in the property of the father. At the call of indigence or avarice, the master of a family could dispose of his children or his slaves. According to his discretion, a father might chastise the real or imaginary faults of his chil- dren by stripes, by imprisonment, by exile, by sending them to the country to work in chains among .the meanest of his servants. The majesty of a parent was armed with the power of life and death; and the example of such bloody executions which were sometimes praised and never pun- ished, may be traced in the annals of Rome beyond the times of Pompey and Augustus^ IN THE FORM OF OBJECtlOXS. 109 "Not only in the relation of the child to the father, but also in that of the wife to the husband, tUd the Roman law estab- lish a power adverse to the precepts and spirit of Christianity. In case of any offence ^vhatever, the husband was the supreme judge, invested with authority to acquit her or to condemn her to death. The law placed her like a slave at his feet, and her life hung on his decree. Observe the testimony of Dionysius [laHcarnassensis on tliis point: — "The law obUged the married women, as liaving no other refuge, to conform themselves entirely to the temper of their husbands. — But if she comm.tted any fault, the injured person was her judge, and determined the degree of her punishment. In case of adultery, or where it was found she had drunk wine (which the Greeks would look upon as the least of all crimes), her relations, together with her husband, were appointed her judges, who were allowed by Romulus to punish both these crimes with deaths This law, of so ancient date, i-onlinued to be operative under the empire. Tacitus mentions a case which occurred at Rome, in the year 57, in the reign of Nero." "Between a Roman citizen and a foreigner there could be no legal marriage,* and the offspring of such a union were deemed illegitimate.! "Of this firmly established law there was no change until the days of the Emperor Caracalla. During more than two centuries of the Christian Era, the children who m ly have sprung from the marriage of a Roman citizen and a Jew, or a Greek, were denied the rights and honors of a legitimate birth. Paul himself, who was a Roman citizen, declared that he had a right to "lead about a wife" with him; but had he or any one of the Roman converts been pleased to marry a Galatian or a Syrian Christian, the law would, as far as concerned civil rights, have placed the off- spring of such a union on a level with the children of a base and criminal connection." Now when the Apostle, address- ing Christians, speaks of husband and wife (amr and gtine) parent and child (goneus and teknon) are we to infer, that under the law of Christ, the wife and child might be held in the same relation as under the Roman 1 uv? No man will claim that the Christian husband or parent might have, or exercise this power. So when the AposUe is addressing Christians under the law of Christ, and speaking of servant * Nonerat cum extenio connubium. Senec. Ben. iv. 35. t Li\7; xxxviii. 36. 110 FRO-SLAVERY ARGU^IENTJS and master — doulos and kurios (or despoles in one instance only) we are not to infer that the servant of the Christian master was held, or might be held in the same relation as the servant of a Heathen master under the law of Rome. The law of Christ which was the law of love ("Whatsoever ye would others should do unto you do ye even so unto them",) was now the rule of duty, the standard by which every relation in life was to be regulated. If then, the same term' be used to designate the servant of a Ciirislian, as that used to designate the servant of a Pagan citizen of Rome, it does not folfow that the servant of the Christian, was held in the same relation, as the servant of the Pagan citizen. As the law of Christ destroyed the property tenure in the wife and child, so it destroyed the property tenure in the Slave.* This argument is to my mind very forcible, W. E. Channing (Princeton Repertory pa. 280) wants to know if Slavery was wrong, why the Aposile did not tell the master to set his slave free, when slavery existed all around him, saciioned by die Roman law? We ask, if the enslave- ment and the murder of the son by the father, and the arbi- trary murder of the wife by the husband was wrong, (which Mr.^ Channing will not deny) why did not the Apostle tell parents, and husbands not to do these things, which, like Slavery, were all around him and sanctioned by the law? We answer : 1st. Neither we, nor Mr. Channing know whether the Apostle did, or did not tell masters to let their Slaves go free. 2d. We suppose the law of "-love to our neighbor as ourselves" made it unnecessary; and had already raised the Slave, together with the wife and child, up to the same moral level with the master, the husband, and the father. To leU * The position of many commentators that the Gospel did not effect the poUtical relations of any one is not true. It did often affect them, and that to a change radical and entire. Among christians it destroyed the property tenure in the wife, the child, and the Slave. It did not allow christians even to go to law before the unjust. 1 Cor. G: 1, It required men to preach in the "name of Jesus, though the Sanhedrim or law of the land, forbade it."' It made it sin in a christian to deliver up a chris- tian brother to the civil authorities to be punished, though the law of the land — the political relation required ''every man to deliver up the chris- tian to the civil authorities." Primitive Christianity was not a time- serving policy, shaping itself to suit Xhe ever-varying phases of political power. It proclaimed whatever was truth and right, and opposed error, whether found in a Nebucadnezzar, a Darius, a Herod — in the cou,rt, or in the sanctuary. IN THE FORM OF OBJECTIONS. 1 1 1 the master to set his slave free, was no more necessary than to tell the father to set his own son free, or to tell the husband not to kill his wife. Before dismissing this text (1 Tim. 6: 1,2) we remark, some writers tell us there was no Slavery in Asia Minor; the country where were situated those churches to whom instruc- tion was given to masters. They state: "It was the policy of the Roman Empire to allow the conquered provinces to retain, for the most part, their own laws, under Roman mas- ters, or officers. 'I'he ancient laws prohibited Slavery in these countries; and when conquered by the Greeks and Romans, Slavery was not introduced into them ; so that at the time of writing these epistles, they were free from slavery. They were free provinces of the Roman Empire. And if slavery was not in the country it was not in the church." If this were once clearly estabhshed, then there would be no hesitancy, about the import of the words master and servant. Nor of the term yoke, used in 1 Tim. 6: 1. It would then be understood not as designating a Slave relation, but a volun- tary engagement for a definite period of time; or the relation of a minor bound. And it is worthy of notice here, that the term yoke, as used in the Bible, is but seldom, if ever used to denote Skvery. It is often used to denote oppressive taxes, and bond-seivice, in the Old Testament. In the New Testament in every case, save this in 1 Timothy 6: 1, it is used to denote a voluntary service; as: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me." And if it could be clearly shown that at the time these epistles were written, there was no Slavery in Asia Minor, then it would follow that in this instance also, it does not denote Slavery. Barnes however, tells us tiiat large numbers of Prygians and Capa- docians, were taken as Slaves to Rome. "And that it is asserted that there were six thousand Slaves, which belonged to the temple of a Goddess in Cappadocia. Hence, he says, the words of Horace: Mancipiis locuples, eget aeris Cappa- docum rex." Who "asserted" this he does not say. But suppose there were Slaves in Capadocia before, or at the time of Horace. That does not prove that there were Slaves there, and in other parts of Asia Minor, when these epistles were written. There were slaves in the British West Indies a few years since, but there are none there now. Now when we remember how little reliance is to be placed upon mere verbal criticism, aside from historic facts, and that historic facts in this case, defining the condition of the Servant, are wanting, 112 riiO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS we see that we are driven to the last rule of exposition, and that is to interpret the words of the Bible in accordance with its well known spirit, or principles; and this we know is against Slavery, and in favor of equal liberty, and equal rights. And could it be made certain from historic facts, that Slavery existed in Asia Minor, and in those portions where were those churches addressed, still our previous argument meets the question fully, and gives the decision in favor of liberty. On that we rely, and notice this because in publishing a manual, all, or most, prominent questions, should be noticed. One more passage, brought forward in support of the first objection, remains to be examined. It is the case of Onesi- mus, as given in the epistle to Philemon. It is maintained that Onesimus was a Slave; had runaway from his Christian owner — Philemon: and that Paul recognized the lawfulness of Slavery by returning the man a slave to his master. See Dr. Junkin's pamphlet, and every body who attempts to apologize for Slavery. Concerning this case, we remark: 1. No man can prove that he was a Slave; and not simply, either a bound person, or a hireling indebted to Philemon. 2. The benefit spoken of in verse 14th, can be accounted for as readily on the ground that Onesimus was sinply a bound person, or hireling, as that of a slave. 3. The fact that the Apostle expresses a doubt, (verse 18) as to whether Onesimus owed Philemon any thing, is proof that he was not a slave. Had the Apostle recognized Onesi- mus as the rightful properly — the slave of Philemon, then there could have been no doilbt in the Aposde's mind as to whether he owed him any thing. Also, slaves do not become indebted m their riiasters. 4; There is evidence in the episde that Onesimus was a hatural brother to Philerrion — a younger brother, bound to the dder. This was very common in that age. Paul calls him *'a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto thee both in the flesh, and in the Lord." We know that Ur. Junkin has given a very lucid criticism on the adverb ''especially,'' showing that it qualifies beloved. As C. M. Clay said to Bro. Rice: "This is love's labor lost". No body "denies it. Every school-boy knows it. And yet it is clear to fevery mind, that there was some reason why Onesimus was more beloved to Philemon, than to Paul. It could not have been on the ground of civil relationship, for he had done service IN THE FORM OF OBJECTIONS. 113 for Paul as well as Philemon; and that too, when the service to Paul was very much needed — under circumstances in which it would be likely to elicit as great affection as it was possible to extend to one not a blood relation. To Paul, Onesimus was a brother, especially or peculiarly beloved in the Lord, — as a christian, — in a spiritual aense. To Phile- mon he was not only a brother specially beloved in the Lord, but also a brother specially beloved in the flesh. (And Paul knew from previous acquaintance, this attachment and blood relationship.) This made Onesimus more especially beloved to Philemon than to Paul. That an elder brother in the flesh, and at the same time a Christian brotherj should have a double attachment to a younger brother who had become a Christian, and was now returning from his wanderings to the path of rectitude, to meet his lawful obligations, is an intelligible reason for more special attachment, But no other as yet assigned, is. 5. As Bro. Brisbane very appropriately suggests, if Onesi- mus had been a runaway Slave, he would not have been found courting the acquaintance of one who knew him and his master, and who could easily inform of his whereabouts. Fugitives in Ohio, do not generally court the presence of travelers from Kentucky ; especially if these travelers know them, and their masters. 6. If it be still insisted that the servant here spoken of was a slave, and that doulos here means slave, as is claimed by pro-slavery men, then in the language of the Apostle (ver. 16) he returns Onesimus "not now a slave, but above a -hive a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord." And history informs us that he was afterguards Bishop of Ephesus. "Ignatius, writing concerning him, praises God that the church of Eph- esus had so good a Bishop." * If, then, he was a slave to Philemon, as is claimed, then the Apostle emancipated him immediately; and that too '^rpon the soil.'" The strongest anti-slavery man could ask no more. Then, take the case either way you will, neither the teachinfj nor the practice of the Apostle, for a moment tolerates slavery. 2. A second objection is, that if slavery was wrong, why did not the Apostles command christians and all men, not to * See epistle of Ignatius to the chuich at Fphesus, as found in Milner's Church History. o 114 rRO-SLAVtRV AKGlME!V.fs enslave."" "If slavery was deemed by them to be a sin, not icr command masters to emancipate and cease to enslave, and' eontent themselves by preaching principles, would have been the worst iorm of expediency — to aet the traitor's part; they would have been faithless and craven !;eralds." So Doctor Fuller, and others. Much stress is laid upon this point by the advocates or apologists for Slavery. It is considered a strong hold; and yet no point is more easy of refutation, and of tri- umphant reply. VVe will answer the above question as Christ did on one occasion, by asking another or others. Why did not the Apostles command christians and all others not to persecute? Persecution was very common in their day. It was "all around them"; and sanctioned too by law, **By a law of the Emperor, every man was required to deliver up the christian, to the civil authorities." Hague. Yet against this unjust and bloody system — this wholesale murder — this wicked law tlicre is not a command saying, you must not per- secute. Do you say the epistles of the Apostles being directed to little bands of christians, governed by the law of love, and having a common interest in the cause of their religion, they did not need a specific command forbidding them to persecute each other? So we say, governed as they were by the law of love, and having a common interest in the cause of Christ, they did not need a specific command to tell them not to en- slave. To enslavs was just as inconsistent with the law of love, as to persecute^ No man can dispute this. Again, we ask why did not tlie Apostles speak i?gainst glac"*- iatorial shows — those bloody butcheries, regulated by law, and in which men were made to fight with their fellow men and with beasts, to gratify a corrupt and cruel hearted popu- lace — fighting as they did before the vast multitude of mer, women, and children in a state of entire nakedness. Why did not the Apostles speak against these shows? Do you say I don't know why? 'J'heii we might say we don't know why he did not speak against slavery. And this silence, "so far as the record goes," is just as good in behalf of those bloody shows, as it is in behalf of slavery. As you cannot claim the former to be right, merely from the silence of the Aposile, so from the silence of the Apostle, you cannot infer that the * W. E. Channing, \n an article published in the Princeton Repertory for 18CG, pa. 277, 278, 279, relies greatly on the above point — the silence oi' Christ and his Ai^ostle^-. So do most all apologist?: lor slavery. IN THE FORM OF OBJECTION'S. 115 latter is right. Do you say the law of love and the spirit of the sixth commandment was against these shows? So we say the law of love and the spirit of the eighth commandment which says "Thou shalt uot steal" — and forbids all kinds of robbery, and the letter of the tenth commandment which says thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbor's, not even his service, his person or his liberty, these were and are against slavery. Again, why did not the Apostle speak against robbery? — tell men they must not rob the houses or pockets of others? There were hordes of men in their day, who lived by robbing travelers and the houses of defenceless persons. Yet, '*^so far as the record goes," the Aposde has no where forbidden men to rob. Do you say they needed no specific command from the Aposde against this sin; for it was contrary to the light of nature and the sixth commandment? So, we say Slavery- was contrary to the light of nature, and of the same sixth commandment. Why did not the Aposde speak specifically against gam- bling, and counterfeiting? In all the epistles it is not once said, you must not gamble or counterfeit. Do you say he forbade these when he said "let no man go beyond and defend his brother in any matter"? So we say he forbade slavery when he forbade oppression (1 Thes. 4: 6 — see the margin) and extortion. See 1 Cor. 5: 11. 6: 10. That slavery is oppression and extortion in the highest degree, no man can successfully deny. And if to give a man a counterfeit note or coin, for five days labor, and thus get his labor without giving him an equivalent, is fraud, — then to take a man's labor for five years, yea, for a lifetime; yea, his body, his wife, his child, — this is fraud that earth cannot measure, and heaven has told, only in the tragedv of mystical Babylon, the "smoke of whose torment ascendelh up forever and forever". Slavery was her crime. Read it. Rev. 18: 13. Lastly, on this point, we notice two most cruel and inhu- man sins of the age, in which the Aposde lived; and yet he has said nothing about them. As we have already seen, the husband and the father, by the Roman law, had the power of life and death over the wife, and the child. The wife might be put to death for drinking wine, or the most trivial offence, "The law placed her like a slave at his feet, and her life hung on his decree." Should the innocent and obedient wife, be S30 unfortunate as not to have been by birth a Roman citizen, 116 PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS then she might be cast off at any whim of her husband— left without a home, with no protection of law, and her children pronounced illegitimate, and "placed upon a level with a base ^nd criminal connection;" yet essential as is the marriage yelation — the protection of wives and children to the welfare of society, and as cruel and inhuman as was the above law, yet "in the epistles of Paul, all of which were addressed to persons living under the Roman empire, no care is taken to guard the churches against the specific evils of this Pagan legislation, which, in the eyes of multitudes, had been em- balmed and hallowed by time; had been blended with the very elements of domestic and social life; had been sustained in every age by the most illustrious examples, and had inter- woven itself with the earliest remembrances and associations of the civilized world, touching human rights, the fitness of things, and the moral order of the universe. Strange as it may seem to some, no husband, in all the realm of the Caesars, is told that his wife had been raised by Christianity above the level of her condition under the Roman law. No one is told that the domestic despotism, on which Roman society was based, was an abomination in the sight of Heaven, and that it was a contravention of the original law of Paradise, which placed the man and the woman on the ground of a true moral equality." And are we to infer from the silence of the Apostle that this domestic despotism was right? That this more than brutal cruelty was sanctioned by the Gospel of love? No man dare claim it. And yet the argument of silence is just as much in favor of this, as of slavery. Also, the powey of life and death over the son, was in the hands of the father. "In his father's house he (the son) was a mere thing: confounded b3r the laws with the moveables, the cattle, and the slaves, whom the capricious master might alienate or destroy without being responsible to any earthly tribunal." And shall we say that this inhuman custom, and this cruel law was sanctioned by the Apostle because there is no specific denunciation of it in his epistles? No man will claim this. And yet the argument of silence is just as good for this form of cruelty as for slavery. But do you say this "domestic desi)otism" was forbidden by the plainest principles of humanity, and by that command which says, "Thou shall not kill." So we say slavery was forbidden by the plainest principles of humanity, and those commands of the decalogue whif-h say " Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not T\ THE FORM OF OBJECTIONS. 117 covet." — Especially by the law of Christ, which requires us to "do unto others as we would they should do unto us." — "Love thy neighbor as thyself." In the realm of Christ, with those who had risen superior to the Roman law, who would not '«go to law before the unjust," whose only rule of action was the law of love, the wite needed no specific com- mand to secure her protection — the son no specific command to secure his emancipation, and the servant no specific com- mand to secure his freedom. In this realm, and under this law it was enough to the husband, parent and master to say: "Husbands love your wives" — "Fathers provoke not your children — "Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal;" and the rights of all were secured and placed upon that platform of equality which "nature and nature's God had established." There are many other practices of men which are admitted to be wrong, yet the Apostle has given no express prohibition of them: and we may just as correctly infer that the Apostle did not consider them sin- ful, as we may infer that he regarded slavery as not sinful because he did not say in so many words, Slavery is sinful. Then we come to this conclusion, that none of the passages relied upon, nor the silence of the Apostles, "so far as the record goes," prove that the Apostles tolerated or sanctioned slavery in any way; or that slaveholders were members of the primitive churches. That they were not is clear: because, 1. The principles of Christianity, as we have seen, are opposed to slavery. This point is admitted by the large body of the apologists 'for the existence of slavery in the church. They say, "the consequence of acting on the principles of the Gospel, of following the example and obeying the pre- cepts of Christ — would be the peaceable and speedy extinc- tion of slavery." Princeton Repertory. Now the principles of the Gospel will destroy nothing that is good or lawful It is opposed to, and will destroy only "that which is morally wrong.'" "It is a fair conclusion therefore, that if Christianity would abolish slavery, it is sinful^' and that Christianity in its beginning would not take this moral wrong — this sin into its bosom. Would the inspired Apostles in setting up a church that was to teach the world righteousness and true holiness, take into it an institution, a practice, knowing that "i7 is sin- ful?''' The absurdity is too gross to be sustained for a moment. Also, if the principles of Christianity be against slavery then it is a plain violation of all rules of interpretation 118 PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS to SO construe its specific precepts as to make them contradict or destroy its foundation principles, 2. Tlie organization of the Apostolical churches, forbids the idea, that slavery was tolerated amongst tiiem. "And all that believed were together, and had all tJiings common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all as every man had need." Acts 2: 44, 45; 4: 32, 34. Now would these christians sell their property — their "possessions and goods," that they might give to the poor, and at the same time rob their fellow man, yea, fellow Christian, of the right to personal ownership, of the very right to acquire, and hold property? yea, the privilege to go and worship his God where, when, and as he chose? Such an act would imply a moral absurdity too gross, and an outrage upon the rights of man too glaring, to be imputed to those whose hearts were tilled with love to man as man, and whose minds were illumined by that spirit which taught them tha "God had made of one blood all nations of men;" and "of a truth he is no respecter of persons," 3. The precept of the Apostle in 1 Tim. 1: 10 forbids the idea that Slaveholders were in the Apostolic churches. The Apostle, speaking to Timothy concerning the law given by God through Moses, says: " i he law is made for murder- ers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for man-slayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for MEN-STEALERS, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any thing contrary to sound doctrine," — the glorious Gos- pel of the blessed God being the standard; — see verse 11, That slavery was opposed to, or condemned by the Gospel, we have already seen. It is therefore, by the teaching of the Apostle, condemned by the law. But the word which is here translated "men-slealers," condemns sluveholding, directly and expressly. The original Greek word for man-stealers is andrapodistes. This is formed from the verb andrapodidzo^ (see Robinson) which means "to enslave." This is its true and primary meaning. JVo man will or can dispute this, Andrapodistes, coming from this verb, means "one who makes a slave in any of the senses of andrapodidzo.''^ Don- negan. 'J'hen andrapodisfais, the word which, in the above Jext, is translated menstealers, means not only those who kid* nap or who seize men and bring them into bondage, but also, and primarily, it means those who enslave men — hold them ?n bondage. This view is also in accordance with reason and IN THE FORM Oi' OBJECTIONS. 119 Justice. What would you think of that interpretation of the dospel, that would condemn and exckide the original horse thief, and then hold as a saint the man who would conceal and use that horse. Is not the participant of crime as guilty as the perpetrator of the first act? Is not the smuggler of goods as guilty as he who tirst stole? And suppose human laws should say the smuggler shall be protected, could these laws altei' (he moral character of the deed? could they make black, white? — evil, good? And should ihe smuggler take advantage of this law — force of numbers, would he be any the less guilty in the sigiit of the moral law and of God? Every man must say he would not. The above exposiiiori has been confirmed by some of the higliest Ecclesiastical aulhoriiies in Christendom. In the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Chnrch, as amended by act of the General Assembly of 1794, and appended to the 142d question of the larger catechism, will be found the following note in expositions of 1 Tim. 1: 10, the text under consideration. "The law is made Norman-stealers. This crime among the Jews, exposed the perpetrators of it, as we have seen,to capiiol punishment: (see Exod. 21: 17;) and ihe Apostle here classes them witii sinners of the first rank The word he uses, in its original import, comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human race into Slavery, or in retaining them in it. Stealers of men are those who bring off slaves or freemen, and KEEP, se/l or buy them. "To steal a freeman," says Groiius "is the highest kind of theft. In other instances we only steal human property; but when we steal or retain 7^<«l in slavery, we seize those who in common with ourselves, are constituted, by the original grant, lords of the earth. — Gen. 1: 28." Dr. Adam Clark, a Methodist divine, in his Comment on the above text, has these words: "Andrapodistais,. Slave- dealers; whether those who carry on the traffick in human flesh and blood; or those who steal a person in order to sell him into bondage; or those who buy such stolen men or ivomen; no matter of what colour, or what Country, Or the Nations who legalize, or connive at such traffic; all these are Men- stealers, and God classes them with the most flagitious of Mortals." In the Methodist Discipline as amended 1784, in answer to the 42d question, — "what shall we do to extirpate slavery,'" m answer, five rules arc appended. 120 PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS 1. Every member of our society who has slaves in his possession, shall, within twelve months after notice given to him by the assistant, legally execute and record an iiistrument, whereby he emancipates and sets free every Slave in his possession." * *. Infants born in Slavery were to be emancipated immediate y. Those under twenty, at twenty- five. Those between the ages of twenty and twenty five, immediately; or at farthest when they arrive at the aire of thirty: an so on with Every Slave until all were set free by a deed of emancipation, recorded. The Second rule required every assistant to keep a book in which should be recorded all the names and ages of all the Slaves, belonging to all the Members of the Circuit, and the time of each record of emancipation. 3d. Rule permitted those who refuse to do so, to withdraw: ^^otherwise the assistant shall Exclude him in the Society ^ 4th. Rule. "No person so voltunarily withdrawn, or so excluded, shall ever partake of the Lords Supper with the Methodists, till he complis with the above requisitions." 5th. Rule. "No person holding Slaves shall in future be admitted into Society, or to the Lords Supper, till he previously Complies with these rules concerning Slavery." Question, 43. What shall be done with those who buy or sell Slaves, or give them away? Answer: They are imme- diately to be expelled; unless they buy them on purpose to free them." * Thus Methodists and Presbyterians once regarded slave holding as a violation of the law of God, and a disci- plinable offence. And we believe they would do so now, was it not for pro-slavery teaching, and that ignis-fatuus, expedi- ency. The words of Bro. Brisbane, a Baptist Minister, who was once a Slaveholder in South Carolina, are so pertinent, and so forcibly elucidate the text under consideration, that for the good of readers who may not see his book on Slavery, I shall insert his words on the above text. "Paul was speaking of the law a^ having been made for men-stealers. Where is the record of that law. It is in Exod 21: 16. and in these words: He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death. Here it will be perceived that it was a crime tD sell the man, for which the seller must sutler death. But it was no less a crime to hold him as a slave, for this also was punishable with death. ' cCG l-lavery and Kpifccopacy by Dr. Peck. IN THE FORM OF OBJECTIONS. 121 A man may be kidnapped out of slavery into freedom.— There was no law against that. And why? Because kid- napping a Slave and placing him in a condition of freedom, was only to restore him to his lost rights. But if the mail who takes him becomes a Slave-holder, or a Slave-seller, then he is a criminal liable to the penalty of death, because he robs the man of liberty. Perhaps some will say this law was only applicable to the first holder of the slave, that is, the original kidnapper, but not to his successor who might have purciiased or inherited him. But wliat is kidnapping? — Suppose I propose to a neighbour to give him a certain sum of money if he will steal a white child in Carolina and deliver him to me. He steals him, I pay him the money upon his delivering the child to me. Is it not ray act as fully as his? — Am I not also the thief? But does it alter ths case whether. I agree beforehand, or not, to pay him for the child? He steals him and then sells him to me. He is found by his parents in my hands. Will it avail me to say I purchased him and and paid my money for him? Will it not be asked, do you not know that a white person is noi Merchantable? And shall I not have to pay the damage for detaining that child in my service as a slave? Assuredly, not only in the eyes of the law, but in the judgment of the whole community, I would be reo-arded a criminal. So when one man steals another and ofiers him for sale, no one in view of the Divine law, can buy him for the reason that the Divine law forbids that man shall in the first place be made a merchantable article. The inquiry must be if I buy, I buy in violation of the Divine law, and it will not do for me to plead that I bought him. I have him in possession and that is enough. God condemns me for it as a raan-stealer. My having him in possession is evidence against me, and the Mosaic law says if he be found in my hands, I must die. Now, when Paul said the law was made for men-stealers, was it not also saying the law was made for slaveholders? I am not intending to apply this term in a harsh spirit. But I am bound as I fear God, to^speak what I am satisfied is the true meaning of the Apostle." That slaveholding is as sinful as the first kidnapping; (in kifldness we say it,) must be manifest upon a raornent^s refleo- tion. In what does the sin of kidnapping consist? Not irt simply removing a man from one country to another, for id so doing you may greatly improve his condition; and if you leave him a free man, he will be very thanful to you for it; P l^g PRO-SLAtERY ARGTMENff? Nor docs it consist in rescuing him from those who have, robbed him of his liberty; as when Abraham rescued Lot from the four kings who had enslaved him (Gen. 14: 16). Abraham found Lot a slave — rescued him from the hand of the oppressor, — changed his location. But Abraham did not continue to hold him a slave, but left him a freeman. To Lot, the act was inestimable; and it was one so replete with disin- terested benevolence and christian duty, that Holy Writ will transmit it as a worthy and noble example to Adam's last son. The sin of kidnapping then must consist in holding the man in bondvge. Now this is the thing done by the slaveholder. It is clear then that the law in condemning the man-stealer equally condemns the slaveholder; for the sin of each is the some — the withholding freedom from, man. It is clear then, that the Apostles did not receive slaveholders into the church; for they are here said, by inspiration, to be violators of the law; and classed with those who commit the most "flagitious crimes" — with "murderers of fathers and mothers." Would they take such into the church? * All this can be said in the spirit of love. Christ loved sinners when he in great plain- ness told them of their sins, and so did the Apostle on the day of Penticost: and by doing so, three thousand were converted in one day, and their souls made heirs of eternsl glory. May God Almighty grant that the slaveholders of our country (for whom we are willing to make sacrifice of all that this world holds dear) may in like manner see and obey the truth, that they may be eternally happy. 5. We cannot suppose that the Apostle received slavehold* ers in the church; for manifestly slavehoiding was then g dis-* ciplinable offence. The Aposlle Paul directing the church a! Corinth (1 Cor. 5: 10) to exclude certain immoralities says: "Now I have written to you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous or an idolator, or a railcr, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." "Therefore put away froM among yourselves that wicked person." Here we see that extortioners in com.mon with fornicators and drunkards were * W. E. Channing, hie Dr Rice and Dr. Fuller, assumes that slave- holders were received into the primitive church, and therefore he concludes slavehoiding cannot be sinful. See Princeton Repertory lor 183G, April No. We deny his position and demand proof of his as.'^un^tion. Where a' man assumes the point in d«ibate, witliout pro\Jng it,. such an act is called "begging the question." JN THE FORM OF OBJECTiOX». I2'i io be excluded from the church. Now that slaveholding was, and is the worst form of extortion, there are but few men who will deny. It is therefore by comm.on consent a disciplin- able offence, and as such could have had no place in the primitive church. To extort is to draw by force — to gain by oppression. I will mention a case. A man once loaned to his neighbor two hundred dollars for twelve months, and took a mortgage on his neighbor's farm, which joined his own. Twelve months rolled round, and the neighbor having been unexpectedly detained by sickness, come two days after the time and made a tender of the money. The man refused to accept it — closed the mortgage, and having the advantage — the power — the *'force" on his side, drew from his neighbor his only home, — his farm worth a thousand dollars, when the man himself had an abundance. The neighbor could make about one hundred dollars a year, (which is the hire of a good slave in some places) clear of all expenses. By his industry and economy, he had bought his farm. The man in taking it, robbed him of the proceeds of his labor for eight years, with- out giving him an equivalent. Now this was extortion, and the man who inflicted it was an extortioner. And the case seems aggravated because it was inflicted by a professed Christian upon a Christian, and a white man. But the slave- holder not only takes the slave's labor for eight years, but for a lifetime, without an equivalent. And not only this, but the body, the wife, and the children, whom God has given to the poor man. All this is done upon men, frequently as innocent and harmless as that neighbor, simply because the slaveholder has the power "the force," on his side. This is the worst conceivable form of extortion; and (in kindness we say it) the slaveholder is therefore the worst of all extortioners. Now the Apostle commanded that such persons be "put away from among you, with such, no not to eat." Thus, it is clear slaveholders were not in the Apostolic churches. We believe for the purity of our holy religion — the good of the master as well as the slave, the offence of slaveholding ought now to be disciplined, and the church that does not do it, disobeys the injunction of the inspired Apostle, and is recreant to her high trust. God designed the church to be a light to the world — to teach men righteousness and the road to eternal light. And the world looks to her for what is right. Her (lecision in almost every nation is admitted to be the standard 124 PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS of right; for it is supposed that she speaks only according to the oracles of God. She speaks for holiness and it is done. She cries, observe the Sabbath. The Farmer lays aside his implements of husbandry, the Merchant closes his doors, and the Mechanic his workship. — The smoking furnace smothers her breath, and the iron horse upon the railway, rests from his rapid flight. Does she apologize for sin, and proclaim a sale of indulo^ence?" A Tetzel is abroad in the land, and the people crowd in tumuliuous throngs to receive measured sin. So when oppression?, grievous lo be borne, and extortion that reaches to the soul — slavery; — if this may receive her sanc- tion, and have the mande of Patriarchal purity thrown over it by her, it will live, though knowingly and confessedly it sucks the life's blood of the nation. And ineffective will be your appeals to men on the ground of temporary benefit. And •0 long as men can find a resting place in the sanctuary; they will seek present ease, and risk the consequences of national interests for coming generations. But strip the iniquitous sys- tem of the sacred livery of Heaven, and let the naked soul "tremble in view of its final destiny, and ''all that a man hath will he give for his life." And whilst I believe it is true that the church is now the bulwark of Slavery, yet if she would raise her united voice against it, all the powers on earth could not save it. Not only is this the way to secure the purity of religion, the welfare of the nation, and the freedom of the slave, but also the spiritual welfare of the master. The in- cestous person (1 Cor. 5: 5) was to be delivered unto Satan i. e. to be cast out from the church, into the world, which is Satan's kingdom) for the destruction of the flesh, (i. e. as a means of inducing him to put away his lustful habits, seeing that they were inconsistent with religion) "that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." So, we believe there is nothing that would so efTectually bring the slaveholder to repent of his sin, and put away his extortion, as to be shown that it is a sin that ruins the soul — excludes from God's kingdom on earthi and if willingly and knowingly persisted in, must exclude from his kingdom in Heaven: for the Apostle adds in the next cuapter (1 Cor. 6: 9, 10) "Neither fornica- tors, nor drunkards, nor thieves, nor extortioners^ shall inherit the kindom of God." Lastly. The known belief and practice of the early Chris- tians, forbids the idea that slavery was tolerated in the Apos- tolic churches. They deemed it one of their highest duties IX THE I'OKM OF OBJECTIONS. 129 to redeem and emancipate those who were enslaved; and for this purpose, they made great sacrifices, and expended vast sums of money. Clement, (who hved at the time of the Apostle Paul, 'was fellow laborer with him,' and 'whose name is in the book of life,' Phil. 4: 3,) in his Epistle to the Corin- thians says: "We have known many among ourselves, who have delivered themselves into bonds and slavery, that they might restore others to their liberty." Can we think that these Christians, who were members of the Apostolic chnrches, looked upon Christianity as tolerating Slavery ? They who were pupils of, and fellow laborers with the Apostle, certainly knew the mind and practice of the Apostle on this matter. Paulinius, Bishop of Nola, expended his whole estate ; and then sold himself in order to accomplish the same object. Cyprian sent to the Bishop of Numidia two thousand five hundred crowns, in order to redeem some captives. Acacius, Btshop of Amida, melted down the gold and silver plate of his church, with which he redeemed captives, taken and enslaved by the Romans. Ambrose of Milan, did the same with the furniture of his church. For the above facts, see the Biblical Repository, October No., 1835, art. Roman Slavery. With these facts before our minds, can we for a moment suppose that Christianity gives any tolerance to slavery, or that the Apostles tolerated it in their communion? And oh ! what a rebuke is here given to those ministers, and all follow- ers of that self-sacrificing Jesus, who enslave their fellow beings, and live upon the gains of unrequited toil. And, in view of the preceding truths and above facts, let us never say again that Christianity tolerates slavery, lest "the stone cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the the timber wit- ness against us." Aye, lest the long sepulchred dead rise from their tombs, and rebuke us for our impiety. CHAPTER VIII. SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. Slavery, as we have shown, is not sanctioned, nor even tolerated by the Bible. Nor is it a thing indifferent; but pos- itively it is sin, a great sin against God and man. This position it is important to make clear, and enforce. It is the great turning point in the Anti-Slavery controversy. "Every thing," said W. E. Channing, " is then conceded which Abolitionists need require, wlien it is granted that slavehold- ing is in itself a crime." * This is what we now propose to show. And this work is the more important from the fact, that we never believe aright, feel aright, nor act aright, on any subject of moral reform until the magnitude of the evil or sin is clearly set before our minds. And one grand reason why we in the South do so little for the abolition of slavery is, our perceptions of its evils and sinfulness are but feeble. Though facts stand thick around us showing our losses, and sins chmb mountain high showing our danger, yet our attention has not been properly turned to them.t Against God slavery is a sin, because 1. It is a usurpation of his authority — an invasion of his rights. At the creation God gave to man authority, or government, over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the beasts ot the field, but ?iuthority over man he reserved to himself. And God now requires that man's powers of body and mind shall be conse. crated to his glory. That he "shall love his God with all his soul, with all his mind, and with all his strength;" — "do all for the glory of God." This he cannot do when his limbs, his body, are govered by another, — his time wholly engrossed * Princeton Repertory, vol. 8, pa, 277. j-The channels of light and moral reform have been to us shut up. Most of our Southern presses have been vi'orse than silent; selecting not the good and that which might have been to us beneficial and timely, but selecting the errors of a few eccentric minds, have branded the whole anti- slavery movement with opprobrium, and prejudiced our minds against even an investigation, or search for truth and duty. SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. li^t by another, — liis mind shrouded in ignorance, and his energies crushed by subjugation. God says to the slave, "Go, preach my Gospel to every creature." Slavery says he shall not; he shall labor for man and not for God. God says to the slave, Go, spend this hour at the house of God in prayer and praise. Slavery says he shall not; he shall go and toil ill the field for his master. God says concerning those united in holy wedlock, "What I have joined together let no man put asunder." Slavery says they shall go where and as the will of the master or his debts shall demand. God says to the wife, "Be obedient to your husband." Slavery says she shall not, but be obedient to those who are not her husband; God says to children, "Be obedient to your parents." Slavery says they shall not, but be obedient to those who are not their pa'rents. God says to the parent, "Train up 5 our child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Slavery says it shall go where, when, and as the debts, or will of the master shall choose; even where the parent shall not look upon it; But does some one attempt to evade this monstrous impiety by saying, " these are the abuses of slavery, and no one has a right thus to intervene God" ? We answer: these are not tlie abuses, but some of the very elements that compose the slavery of the land. Slavery is not a mere obligation to perform service for another, as we have shown; but it is a relation in which one innocent man by law, is made the prop- erty of another, subject to the liabilities o^ property. Slavery h a creature of law, and regulated by law. Hence, at the death of every master, or during the lifetime of debtors, by the authority of the law, the husband is torn from the wife, the wife from the husband, the parent from the ciiild, the child from its parent, the christian from the appropriate ser- vice of his God. All this may be done without the masterV wish or consent; and all these atrocities may be committed, not by the authority of unkind masters, but in consequence of one of the very elements of slavery,— the property, the chat- tel principle in man; and by authority of the law— the law of its existence. But, do you say as Dr. Fuller, "the master may have this power, but it is not right for him to exercise it." Then, we answer: 1st. If it be not right for him to exercise it, then it is not right for him to covet it, nor us to bestow it.- And, 2dly, as we have just shown, these abuses may result^ not from unkind exercise of the master's power, but from the^ k-w of tlie land, which makes the slave subject to the liabih-^' 128 SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. ties of properly. But, do you say, pass a ]a\v forbidding these abuses? Then we answer: the moment you pass sucii a law you pa&s an abolition act — you liurl a death blow at slavery. For, 1st., no man will buy a slave under such re. strictions. He will not buy when he is compelled to keep them, whatever may be the characlel" or number of his slaves. Here then would be an end of the matter. And, 2d., not onU'- would the master cease to buy, but the slave himself Would become free: for the moment you pass a law forbidding the master to invade the religious rights of the slave, to allow him to worship his God where, w..en, and as he may deem it his duty, that moment he becomes free; for no man will stay under such a law, where even his religious rights may be controlled — usurped by another. Slavery, then, is a usur- pation of God's claims, of God's authority. It cannot exist without giving to the master this power; nor can the master perpetuate slavery without the exercise of this power. The non- slave. lolder who, by his silent consent, by his vote, and by his musket, protects the slaveholder in this usurpation, is a participant in the sin; U. Slavery is a usurpjition of man's rights. That man, as man, has rights, — rights variously termed natural, inalien- able, inherent, or absolute, is a truth which has been conceded and acted upon by the large mass of mankind, from creation's dawn to the present time. The law of God proclaims the same trlith, when it declares, that God will be a "swift witness against those who tui"n aside the stranger frorri his rights." — "To turn aside the rights of a man before the face of the Most High, * * the Lord apprdveth not." "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, * * to turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people." The second table of the decalogue proclaims the same truth, and specifies what these rights are. The sixth commandment teaches the rights of personal own- ership, and personal security. The eighth command teaches the right of property. The ninth the right of character.— The tenth sums up all rights and forbids their invasion. Ajid feraember the moral law teaches our duty to man as nian; to the whole human family. Note, also, the moral law, like th9 civil law, was given, not to invest rights, but to protect rights already possessed* — rights natural ^o man as man. Man, * Sc* chapter Y. pa. 70, 74, &LAVERY siNFUL IN ITSELF; 12^ then, is the possessor of rights, and to violate them is sin. We now show how slavery violates these rights. 1. It takes away from man the right of personal owner- ship. The fmidamental truth, that man owns himself, so far as man's claims are concerned, is taught by the light of nature, the laws of civilized nations, and the word of God. The very fact that God has given to man eyes to see, is evidence that God Wills that man should use them. The very fact that (jod has given him a body with a variety of members, is evidence that God wills that he should use it, and that he has a right to do so. And this right imposes on all others the obligation to leave him in the innocent exercise of this right; for rights and duties arc correlative terms: one always implie* the other. The laws of civilized nations declare the same truth. Blackstone says, "Those rights which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural, such as life and liberty, na human legislation has power to abridge or destroy, unless the owner himself shall cortimit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." By these natural or absolute rights, he says, "we mean those which are so in their strict and primary sense; such as would belong to their persons in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether in society or out of it.*^ " Liberty," he says, " is a right inherent in us by births In our declaration of Indepen- dence, "the political faith of the nation," we have declared that "all men by nature are created equal," (that is, so far as natural rights are concerned, not as to condition,) "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These self-evident truths necessarily pre-suppose that man owns himself, for no man can have liberty without owning himself. The word of God pre-supposes the sailie truth, in imposing on man the duties of employing the energies of his body and mind for God's glory and for the welfare of his wife, his children, his fellow man. These duties he cannot perform, unless, so far as the claims of man are concerned, he owns himselt. The eighth commandment pre-silpposes that man owns himself, in guarding his right of property, which right he cannot have, unless he owns himself. As we showed in chapter fifth, the moral law was given, not to invest rights, but to protect rights already given — rights which belong to man Q 130 SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSEtf. in a slate of nature. That man owns himself — has a right to personal ownership in a state of nature (that is prior to coming into organized society,) is a point which no man will deny. Yet the law of God says, thou shalt not so much as even covet this right— "Thou shalt not covet any thing that is (hy neighbor's." Again, the word of God teaches that man as man owns himself when it forbids man-stealing. "He that stealeth a man and selleth him; or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death." Exod. 21: 16. Here it is taught that man owns himself, and to deprive him of self, of personal ownership, of liberty, is a sin, which under the Mosaic law, was punished by death. As we have shown, page 118, the Aposde Paul places the robbery of personal ownership with the worst of crimes. We, as a nation, have proclaimed the same truth to the world, in condemning kid- napping and piracy as criminal offences. Our Government has pronounced the slave trade on the ocean to be piracy, and punishable with death. Why this, but that man owns him- self, and it is a crime, a great crime, to deprive him of this righ . Now if a man on the coast of Africa owns himself, as we thus admit, then neither the violent seizure by the kid- napper, nor his transportation across the ocean deprives him of personal ownership. Nor does die fact that 1 transfer to the kidnapper a certain amount of money for him, deprive him of personal ownership: for the claim of the kidnapper being invalid, — void — the transfer must be the same. Nor can the laws or resolutions of a band of his fellow men on this side of the ocean, lawfully deprive him of per- sonal ownership, any more than the laws of Pharaoh could make it right for the Hebrew mid-wives to destroy the male children, or that the Israelites should be deprived of their liberty. Human governments have no right to deprive an unoffending man of his liberty or right to personal ownership. Human laws "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,^'' and are made for "the protection of rights," — not for the robbery of the rights of an innocent man. Such is the voice of our Declaration of Independence. Blackstone after stating that all men have absolute rights, such as "life and liberty," says: "The primary object of law is to main- tain and regulate these rights" — not to rob man of them. He says further, "no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the oivncr himself shall commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." Concerning things which SLAVERY SINFUL IX ITSELF. 134 ate naturally and intrinsically wrong — (naturally man owns himself — has liberty: — to take this away is a violation of nature) such as "murder, perjury, theft," (and the robbery of liberty is the worst of theft,) he says "municipal law has no force or operation at all." That is, things naturally and in- trinsically wrong, human Isws have no power to make them right by saying they may be practiced. No human legisla- ture then, has a right to make an unoffending man a slave, any more than they have to take the life of an innocent man. And such laws are impious before God, unjust to man, and as we showed, (pa. 74, 75) gross absurdities, and therefore (the best legal authorities being judge, as seen above,) nul and void from the beginning. Nor can any person be born a slave. We have declared to the world, in our Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal;" (that is, so far as natural rights are con- cerned,) "and have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Then no man may be born a slave, any more than you or I, dear reader; or your child, or my child. Two years before our Declaration of Independence John Wesley said: "It cannot be that either war, or contract, can give any man such a power in another as he has in his sheep and oxen. Much less is it possible that any child of man should ever be born a slave. Liberty is the right of every human creature; as soon as he breathes the vital air; and no human Imvs can deprive him of that right, ivhich he derives Jrom the law of nature.''^ And reader, were it your case, or that of your child, you would soon understand whether human governments have a right to cause that you, and yours should be born slaves. There is then, no just ground on which personal ownership may be withheld from an adult man who is sane and not a criminal. To deprive of personal ownership, or to enslave, is robbery of the worst form that we can inflict upon man. This position I will make cJear by an illustration. Not long since, i was conversing with an elder in the Presbyterian church, and who has lived here in Kentucky, in the midst of slavery, until he has be- come a gray-headed man. He remarked that he was like Dr. Rice and Dr. Junkin: he thought that the wrong of slavery consisted in its abuse, in the unkind treatment of slaves, and not in the thing itself. I requested the privilege of asking a few questions; which he granted. Said I, if I were to meet you on the highway, and take your horse from you, would 132 SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. you not Jeem the act sinful? "Yes," was his reply. But, said I, were I to leave you the owner of yourself, could you not, by industry and economy, soon get enough to buy another horse? "Yes," was the reply. And could you not also ad- minister to the comfort of your family, and still worship your Go:l as you might choose? "Yes," was again his reply. But, said I, if, instead of taking your horse, I had taken you, and made you a slave, and thus deprived you of your liberty, and the very right to possess, would I not have done you a greater wrong? "Yes," said he. Well, then, is not slavery worse than stealing the horse? "Yes," was again the reply. Liberty, personal ownership, is more dear to man than the possession of the world. Give me liberty, or give me death, was the motto of our foreAilhers. Slavery, then, in itself — in its essential element, aside from its abuses, is sin: sin of awful and fearful magnitude. Mr. W. E. Channing of Boston dissents from this view. In an article for the Princeton Repertory for 1836, he says : " The grand mistake, as we apprehend, of those who maintain that slaveholding is in itself a crime, is, that they do not dis- criminate between slaveholding in itself considered, and its accessories at any particular time or place." By these acces- sories, he means, as he specifies, "laws forbidding the instruc- tion of slaves"; which interfere with the marital or parental rights; which subject them to the insults and oppression of the whites" — these, he says, we may admit to be in the highest degree unjust, without at all admitting that slavehold- ing is itsell a crime. Slavery may exist without any one of these concomitants." This last assertion is not admitted. S|)eaking concerning those "who denounce slavery," he says: " They have a confused idea of chains and whips, of degra- dation and misery, of ignorance and vice, and to this complex conception they apply the name slavery," (not so: our idea of slavery consists chiefly in the robbery of personal owner- ship — of liberty) " and denounce it as the aggregate of all moral and physical evil." Now to all this we reply, 1. We have as certainly seen "ignorance and vice, degra- dation and misery," as our friend, the Bostonian. We have seen too, "chains and whips" — yea, whips stained with human gore; and with it, we have heard the slave-groans ! And painful as is thjs to the heart of Philanthropy, we can look beyond this, or all these, and distinguish between these and the mere robbery of personal ownership— of liberty: and SLAVERY SIVFUL I\ ITSELF. 13S firmly believe, and effectually prove, that this latter, is in itself a great crime. Were we to ask Mr. W. E. Channing (not Dr. Channing, the distinguished opponent of slavery) which is the greatest sin, — to rob him of his library and his horse, or to make a slave of him — rob him of personal own^ ership — of his liberty, even though he was placed in the hand of what is called a "kind master," what would be his reply? He would say (unless he differs from all men,) take my library, my horse, my house — all that I have; but let me he a free MAN ! — let me be free to minister to my wife, my c\\\\(\, where, and when I choose. — Let me be free to worship my God where, and when I clioose — to -'rob me of liberty, is itself a crime." 2, Mr. Channing will find it exceedingly difficult — so diffi- cult that he cannot separate slavery from what he calls its "accessories." Whenever he passes a law allowing the slave to worship his God and take care of his family — have "his marital rights" where, and ivhen he chooses, so soon Mr. Channing will have destroyed slavery; for the slave, be assured, will no longer worship under the "vine and fig tree" of slavery, but under the olive of peace, and the wide spread shade of liberty: — in other words, in a free State, among some plain Quakers, who will respect his rights, his liberty, and encourage his manhood. But laws forbidding the slave to worship his God where, when, and as he chooses, — to take care of his family where, and as he may deem it best and duty, are essential to the very existence of slavery. We think Mr. Channing has been trying to make a distinction where there is no difference. Again, Mr Channing tries to evade this point by saying all men forfeit more or less of their natural rights in coming into society, or organized governments. He admits that slavery is a condition in which man "is deprived of his personal lib- erty, and made to labor for another" — "That this condition involves the loss of many of the rights commonly and prop- erly called natural, because belonging to men as men, is readily admitted. It is, however, incumbent on those who maintain that slavery is, on this account, necessarily sinful, to show that it is criminal under all circumstances" (he should have said, in the case of all those not criminals) "to deprive any set of men of a portion" (he should have said all) "of their natural rights." This broad position, he says, cannot be maintained. "For," says he, "the very constitution of society supposes the forfeiture of a greater or less amount of those rights, 134 SLAVERY SINFUL IX ITSELF. according to its peculiar organization." To this we reply,' 1. Mr. Channing has the great misfortune to differ from George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and that long list of good men and sound minds, who signed the Declaration, and there declared it to be a self-evident truth, that all men have certain inalienable rights, such as life, Ubeny, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are formed. Then these Revolutionary- Fathers being judges, society or governments are formed for the protection of our natural rights, not their "forfeiture." We come into society to have our natural rights more perfectly protected; and whenever society or governments take these^ away, as we have shown above, (and Mr. Channing himself being judge) it docs that which is sinful, unless we as crimin- als, have murdered the peace of society. Mr. Channing next refers to Patriarchal Governments, and Monarchies, affirming that they, with their arbitrary power^ may exist without sin, if the state of society demands them. Admitted; because they may exist without depriving man of any of his natural rights. But whenever they take from au unoffending man (as is the case with the slave) his natural rights, they commit sin; because they violate nature, and the law of God, as we have seen. Again, he refers to women and minors, as deprived of cer- tain political rights; and infers that it is "not enough to prove the sinfulness of slaveholding, to show that it interferes with the natural rights of a portion of the community." Now when Mr. Channing talks about women being deprived of cer- tuii rights, without sin, and therefore, the slave may be deprived of natural rights without sin, it is manifest, 1. That he confounds political, with natural rights. Black- s-tone discriminates. Natural rights are such as right to per- sonal ownership — right to personal security— right to proceeds of our labor — right to worsiiip Gop where, when, and as we please. — Such r.s a man has in a state of nature. When he consents to become a member of society, on him may be con- ferred certain political rights, such as' voting (fee. This is conventional, and may be bestowed or withheld, as the well- being of society may demand. The possession of this is not essential to man's well-being, his duty to God and to his fel- low man. But the possession of man's natural rights is, and to withhold them is therefore sinfuL SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. 136 2. Mr. Channing's argument to be worth any thing, sup- poses the condition of the sUive to be like the condition of the woman, or person deprived of certain political rights. Here is an awful chasm, and we wonder that he could have leaped it. I, and Mr. Channing too, if he is a minister of the Gos- pel, suffer the privation of certain political rights, yet our condition is far from being that of a slave. My wife, and Mr. Channing's (if he has one, and I hope he has, and a good one too) suffers the privation of certain political privileges, yet their condition is far from being that of a slave. Again he says: "As it is acknowledged" (not acknowledged by all) "that the slaves may be justly deprived of political rights, on the ground of their incompetency to exercise them without injury to the community, it must be admitted, by parity of reason, that they may be justly deprived of personal freedom, if incompetent to exercise it with safety to society." To this we reply 1. If Mr. Channing's child, or the women of our country are not fitted to exercise the elective franchise, or if it is best for society that they should not, it does not follow that they may be held as slaves. So, if it were even admitted that the slaves of our country may be deprived of the elective fran- chise —of potitical rights, it does not follow, that by parity ot reason, they may be deprived of all their natural rights, or enslaved: for 2 Facts prove that they are not "incompetent to exercise pers'onal freedom with safety to society." In the last forty two years there have been between fifty and sixty cases ot emancipation; and all have worked better than in a state of slavery. Every free State of our Republic is a demonstration of the same truth. . To his reference to Parental authority over minors, we reply: The parental relation is right because it is necessary and appointed of God. But slavery is not necessary, nor is it a thing appointed by God. The right of control of the fVither ovev the son during the years of minority, arises from the father's obligation to provide for, and train aright that child.— But so soon as the son attains to the years of man- hood so soon does the father's obligation cease, and with it his authority over the son.— But over another man— th« slave, there is no such obligation to train him, and provide tor him or his child; and by consequence no such claim ta Eervice or obedience as over the master's own child durmg the years of minority. 13^ SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. Again, he says the condition of the slave results from the fonirof society. In England one man is born a Peer, another a Peasant: and so in America, one is born a freeman and another is born a slave. We reply: One man in England may be born a peasant, and though he may not have (and all men cannot have) the privileges and responsibilities of a Peer, ^•et he enjoys all of his natural rights — those rights essential to his well being, his duty to his God and his fellow men. But when one in America is born a sldVe, he is deprived of those natural rights — those rights essential to his well-being, his duty to hfs God, and his fellow men. And the society that commits such robbery, does that which is impious towards God, and unjust to man. And we believe every inan who sanc- tions such a state of society, won't use the moral and political means which his honest and enlightened judgnieht shall decide to be necessary for the change of that sociery, is a participant in other men's sins. Lastly, Mr. Chanriin^, to evade the point that the robbery of personal ownership is siii, says: 'Slavery is obligation to perform service for another, with power to transfer this claim of service to aiidther; and that this is analagous in principle to the transfer of subjects from one government to another; as of Louisiana from France to the United States.' To this we reply, 1. His definition of slavery is ridt correct; as we showed in our first chapter. Slavery is not mere obligation to perform service for another. My child is under obligation to render me service, but it is not therefdre a slave; and I have no right to treat it as one; 2. There is no "analogy" between the condition of a slave, and that of the citizens of Louisiana. Every man knows that they were not the property of any man, or set of men — that they were not held to involuntary service — were free to slay, or remove — were free subjects of a free province. And thus we believe that nearly the whole of that argument in the Princeton Repertory, is based as \Ve believe, upon false positions,* and we have referred to it, thus often and extend- edly, because it has been retailed and reiterated so long and so extensively through the South, that it has become the stereo- lyped argument of almost every apologist for slavery. But * We doubt not but that they were honestly made; but to us they seem palpably erroneous. SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. 13"? after all, when the battery of logic is exhausted, and criticism drained of her lore, men\vill stiil say, when it comes to their case, "Give me liberty, or give me death" — take my horse, my house, my farm — all; but let me own myself. To take this "is a crime in itself." 2. Slavery is sinful because it takes from man his right to serve God as he chooses — as his judgment and conscience shall dictate. This right to man is the most sacred of all others; because its invasion affects his inmiortal interests — his destiny in the spirit-world. Robbery of temporal rights can follow the poor man no farther than the grave; but lobbery of religious interests, will be felt through the cycles of eternity: the saved, their cup of salvation will be small — the lost, their souls the prey of lust, their anguish will be eternal. Hence Holy Writ records no miracles so replete with disap- probation, as those wrought in defence of this right to worship God as we choose. The deliverance of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace, of Daniel from the lions' den, the Exodus of the children of Israel — nhe waters that became stagnant pools of blood, the boils and blains on man and beast, the streets and highways piled up with things of loathsomo form, the fire and hail that played in dread confusion in their pathway, the kneading- troughs, the chambers and couches wreakincT with dissolving nature, the death-groans of the first- born, and above all that stretched out arm that overthrew Pharaoh and his hosts and stranded them like wrecks upon the billows of the sea', are so many moral monuments of God's displeasure of religious tyranny, and decision that each man has a rig' it to worship God where j and as he chooses. So thought our forefathers when they forsook their friends and property, the homes of their youth and graves of their fathers, periled the dangers of the ocean and blasts of winter, that they might plant in the unbroken wdderness, temples which should be a resting place to every soul, and institutions securing religious liberty to men of every land. And Oh ! is it true that in this land dedicated to religious freedom, there are three millions of innocent, unoffending beings (fettered by the vote if chiisiians,) so that they can w(,r^hip only as the judgment or caprice of masters, long accustomed to usur- pation, may dictate? Is it true that the toil-worn slave, and christian pilgrim cannot have the privilege of cheering his burdened soul by mingling his voice, and his prayers at the 23$ iLAVERY BINrCL IN XTBItP. house, and with the people of his choice? Do we not only burden the body of the poor unoffending man, but then fetter the aspirations ol the soul — tramel his immortal interests — niaim the spirit for all oominir time? Was ever robbery more complete, despotism more galling, and acts more sacrilegious? Is not this sinful? And if we persist in our oppression, shall we expect to avert the wrath of Him who has said: *''J'hoi! shall njiiher vex a stranger, nor oppress ium: if lliou afflict them in any vvisse and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and vour wives si all be widows and your children shall be fatherless." O leader, let us run to and fro through the laud, calling upon onr brethren to turn from their evil doings — rush to the sanctuary, tear froi-u the altar the mon- ster of oppression, that we may avert the swift judgment of God Almight3^ The world too, is waking to freedom. Borne on every breeze that crosses the Atlantic, comes the sweet tones of a universal jubilee. Shall trans-Atlantic States be- come our exemplars, — Popes and Musslemen our teachers? Shall we, who were first to raise the banner of liberty, be last to sway the sceptre of despotism? Ye sons of the fair South, let us, with all those of every Stale, who are lovers of that which is right, generous, and noble, purify the sanctuary from all oppression, — rally to the ballot box, tear down that fustian flag from our capital, which waves a falsehood to every breeze, and hoist in its stead one that in truth and verity, will proclaiiTi ta the wide world, — man is free — made so by the genius of universal emahcipaiion. 3. Slavery takes from man ihe right of personal security. Personal security is also classed among the natuial rights of man: *'for the protection of which," says our Declaration of Independeiice, "Uovernments are instituted among men; deri- ving their just powers froiT^the consent of the governed: thai whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people toalter, or abolish it." The law of God also forbids ihe invasion of this right. The sixth commandment forbids that injury should be ofTered to the person of man. A rule of interpre-atior.i as recognised both in civil and divine law is, that when any precept forbids the highest crime of any- class of wrongs, it forbids all smaller ones of the same class. So when the sixth command forbids us to kill ihe body of our fellow man, it also forbids all other violences that may be offered ^ his psTSDn. tLAVERY iJiNFUL IX ITSELF. Itf But slavery says it shall be lawful to violate both the funda- mental principle of the civil law, and the plain teachings of revealed law. li^ ihe i'lave shall leave the master's promises and go to an- other for the purpose of worshipping God, or some duty to his family, slavery makes it lawful that he may be severely punished. If he persist in duty, or resist offered violence, without any attempt to injure the person inflicting punishment, he may he beaten to bloodshed. The civil law has cut the sinews of industry, economy, and virtue, by taking away character, and a recompense for labor; it has placed the whip in the hands of the master, and subjected the poor slave to all the torture that wanton caprice, brutal lust, or malignant spite may inflict. And, said the Synod of Kentucky, "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." And though the physical condition of the slave may be comparatively good, yet who among us would be willing to have his body liable to such inflictions; — under the control of some petty overseer, paid in proportion as he can extort labor and subjection from the poor slave ; or under a master with irre.'^ponsible power. O, my dear readers, those of us who may be husbands, or parents, let us for a moment imagine what would be the anguish of our souls if we were compelled to stand by and see the cowhide applied to the tender flesh of the wife of our bosom, or the child of our body. Who, oh! who, that has the feelings of a man, could look upon such a sight? Were it your case, dear reader, overruled, as is the poor slave, by superior numbers and cruel laws, all that you could do would be to wipe fiom your eyes the tear of sor- row, and hide within your bosom that anguish of soul that knows no equal this side the grave. And tliough their bodies were spared, and were what is termed "well clothed and well fed," still, could you bear to see them driven like beasts of burden to unrequited toil? Every stroke of the slave is extorted by fear; for no man will, as a slave, ^)ii without recompense, only from fear of punishment. And has it come to this, t at in liberty boasting America, three millions of our fellow beings are driven, under lash, like beasts, to toil for the ease, the wealth, the pride of others? Was ever despotism so complete, and so degrading? And must this be the condition of man, who was made a little Ha SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. lower than the angels? Forbid it humanit}% forbid it Heaven! Truly may we say in tlie langiuige of Holy Writ, "Judgment is turned away backward, and justice standelh afar otf; for truth is fallen in the streets and equity cannot enter. And the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judg- ment." Nor may we, either as slaveholders, or non-slave* holders say, I have not done it: "For if thou forbear ia DELIVER them that are drawn to death, and those that are ready to be slain; if thou sayest, Behold we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth he not know it? and shall he not ren- der to every man according to his works?" No max can do duty and be silent. The God of his being, and final destiny, demands aciion at his hands. 4. {Slavery takes frurn man the right to acquire and hald properly. Every man has by nature a right to the products of his own labor. Whatever vakio I creatjB by my own labor, or by the innocent use of the other means which God has givea me, is mine. So says Wayland. This, indeed, is the true ground ou which all men originally acquire a right to prop* erty. The fruits of the tree,"the ti^iiiber of the forest, the fish of the sea, the ground we cultivate, survey, or enclose, becomes ours by labor bestowed. So plain is this truth, that the large mass of the human family have acted upon it for more than live thousand years. The defence of this right, was the ground of the American Revolution. "The objection which liie fathers of the revokiiion had to being taxed by a Parlia- ment in which they were not represented, v;as, thai Parliament on this basis, was empowered to swell their taxes, so as to draw from the people all their earnings, save a bare subsis- tence, and to go even below this, inlo their needful bread. This, said the revolutionists, destroys in us the right of get' ling and holding property.'' This was a right on which depended the welfare of themselves, their families, and their country: a right so dear, so valuable, that for it they were willing to peril their lives, and shed their hearts' blood. And shall we, their descendants, who annually celebrate their vir- tues, and laud their patriotic deeds, be guilty of a system of oppression, a thousand fold m re grievous than British Parlia» menis ever heaped upon Ameiican colonies? The Bible teaches the same great truth: that man has » ifight to the proceeds of his own labor. The ground on which SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. 141 Abraham claimed the well, usurped by the servants of Abim- elsch, was, that he, Abraham, had digged the well. Gen. 21: 25-30. He had a right to his own labor, and ihat produced by his labor. This is a clear and a strong case. It is very pertinent. The eighth and tenth commands forbid that one man shall take the property, the goods produced by the labor of another. It is a sin to do it. And if one man has not a right to the proceeds of another man's labor, much less has he a right to the labor itself. "Labor, the basis of the right of property^ cannot be the subject of property." — Lock. Further and stronger; the Bible pronounces an awful curse upon those who rob their fellow men of their labor, or withhold from them the reward due to them for their labor. "Wo unto him that buildetli his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong ; that useth his neighbor's SERVICE Vv^ITHOUT WAGES, AND GIVETH HIM NOT FOR HIS WORK. Jer. 22: 13. Slavery then is sin, — sinful in itself. Every essential element of it is sinful. It is a robbery of man's right to serve God as he chooses — of his right to personal ownership — of his right to personal security — of his right to acquire, hold and disburse property. It is a complication of sins; and it was in view of the privation of these many rights, that Wesley styled it, "the sum of all villanies." It is in view of this robbery of man's natural rights that we decide that slavery is always and in all cases sinful. Some try to dis- prove this by saying, a man may buy a slave for the purpose of freeing him : this cannot be sin, — therefore slavery is not in all cases sinful. To this we reply: 1. The man enters upon the relation of master to a slave, not because slavery is a good thing, but that he may destro}' a wrong thing. 2. The existence or relation of slavery does not depend alone upon the intentions of the master. The law holds the bought man as the property of the purchaser, subject to all the liabilities of properly. Should the master be in debt, the law seizes the bought man immediately, and sells him for the master's debts into interminable bondage. Or, on the other hand, should the master die before he had time to get a decree of court for the slave's emancipation, the slave is given by law to unfeeling heirs. The law in holding the slave thus, deprives him of personal ownership, — of personal security, of right to proceeds of his labor, of right to worship his God where and when he chooses, of the right to the wife of his. 148 SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF, bosom and the child of his hody. Now the law in creating znd pcrpefua'ing such a relation, creates and perpetuates one which is sinful as long as it exists. The master's intentions may have been good and he may have desired the relation to cease, and the bought man to be free the moment after he bought the Slave. But the law holds that man as property — robbed of his natural rights until the master can obtain a decree of Court and lodge ui the olfice a deed of emancipation. As long as the law ( ontinues the relation, it continues one which is in itself sinful. Slavery then may be sinful but the master may have been innocent in his intentions. 3. Such a master is not, strictly speaking, a slaveholder, but only a redeemer. He does not hold the bought man — he does not wish to do so for a single moment. The law is the slaveholder. Slavery then, whether continued by tiie law or the master is always sinful because, it is the robbery of man's dearest rights — the right to possess — the right to be a man and act as a man. Never was despotism more galling. Even the Pasha of Egypt, though he claims the lands on which his subjects live, and a large part of what they raise, yet he leaves them the owners of themselves, their wives, their children, their househohl stuff, and a part of what they raite; but slavery takes all. Other despols leave a p:.irt, but slavehold ers take all. It is worse than highway robbery. The robber, so he get my property, is willing to leave me the owner of my wife, my child, and myself, that I may acquire more, but slavery lakes all. And tell me not that this monster sin, this complication of wrongs, is sanctioned or even tolerated by the Bible. Has God given us a long list of commands guard- ing man's every right, and then sanctioned this monster which, at one fell blow, robs man of all rights? It cannot be. And if those of us who are non-slaveholders stand sileitt by, wink at, and with our vo^e sustain this cruel system, we are participants in the slave's robbery, and the nation's ruin. If I should piish a man into the stream and you should run down and deliberately hold his head under until you should witness the last deatn gasp, would you not be equally guilty? Remember this. It was very forcible to my mind the first time I heard it. Reader let us now covenant that we will not again vote in a way that will encourage, or even tolerate slavery or slaveholding. I, for one, will lose my vote before I will give it to perpetuate what I now believe to be one of SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF, 143 the worst evils morally, and politically, in onr nntion. Banks an.l 'rariffs are nothing in comparisc^n with slavery. And just c^n soon as the political parties see that there is a balance of power, however small, in any county or Slate which will not vote so as to sanction slavery, then they will put out candi- dates who are not slaveholders, or at least those who practically as well as theoretically i^o for liberty principles. i ht n the work will be done. The plan is simple, easy, and certain. Facts have already proved it. Reader, let us not hold the head of the poor man under any longer. EVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY. We now specify some of those evils which grow out of slavery, and are always connected with slavery. And here let me state an admitted truth: It is alwcnjs sinful for its to practice or sanriinn by our voice or vote, a practice which oj itself necessarily brings evil upon our fellow men, the church of Christ, and our country. If the practice even occasion others to do wroncr, and is not essential, we should abandon it Paul says, -If meat make my brother to oflend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeih, lest I make my brother to offend:' "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor ANY THING whercby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is ftnDE WE\K." And that all pretext for false logic may be removed, we would note specially, that we do not say that those thimrs, (such as the parental and marriage relations,) which are'^in themselves right, good, and essential, should be put away because they may be, and are aMised^ but those ihinTP which are not essential, 7iot go^d, and always occasion or directly produce evil, such it s sinful lor us to practi e or 8anction:'it is a violation of the law of love. "And to him that knoweth to do frood, and doeth it not, to him it is sm. I. Slavery is an evil to the slave', because, 1. It removes from the slave so-i.e of the strongest motives to virtue, and the greatest restraint'^ from vice. God has placed in man a love of approbation, a desire for family preferment, a sense of character, a desire for property, a thirst for knowledge. These are the natural incentives to industry and virtue, and are surpassed in their invigorating and healthful tendencies only by the motives of the gospel. tThey are the springs to action, and the "salt that saves from corruption." But slavery takes these away, and leaves hiin exptjsed to the baser passions of his corrupt nature. No*. 144 EVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY. being able to possess any thing, he has ho motive to industry but the lash. It is not then surprising that he is slothful, negligent, stupid. Who would not be so under such circum- stances; with his mind shrouded in ignorance, his energies crushed by subjugation, and his appetite beastialized with sensualiiy? Wuuld not the white man be so, were he kept in this condition for centuries? Having no opportunities of rising to respectability in society, knowledge, skill and virtue are considerod by him of but little utility. Hence so little effort to secure or possess them. Having no character to lose, either for himself or his family, he has but little to restrain him from the commission of vice or crime when temptations come. To evade chastisement for want of industry, economy, or virtue, he becomes a liar, which is notorious. To gratify the desire for property, and to have a little pocket money to get small articles for himself and family, he becomes a thief. Or if unwilling to get these articles in this way, having his lime occupied during the week in the service of his master, he becomes a Sabbath-breaker, by employing that day in making and selling his brooms, trays, &c. This he would not do but to procure money to buy little articles for himself and children. It makes him in heart a murderer, in hating the man who robs him of his rights, or oppresses him. Does not slavery sink the slave into the greatest depths of moral degradation? Surely we may say it is worse for his soul than for his body. And can any man love his neighbor as himself, and wilfully practice tlie system, or even silently consent to it, and tolerate it in he land, so long as he has a mouth to speak, means to employ, or a vote to decree? 2. Slavery violates the marriage relation, occasions the slave to disregard it, and practice the consequent vice, con* cubinage. Slavery, as we have noticed before, is a creature of law; hence, whether the master wishes to separate the slave from his companion or not, if he should die, or get in debt, either by extravagance or by becoming security, the taw seizes his slaves, sunders husband and wile, east, west, north or south — wherever it can get the highest bidder** Thus does * The following picture, from the Christian Advocate and Journal (Methodist), is only one of the thousand daily occurrences in every slave State. "At Wilnaington, North Carolina, as I went on board the steamboat I noticed eight colored men, hand-cuifed and chained together in pairs, four v/omen, and eight or ten children, of the apparent agso of EVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY. 145 law, sustained by cliristiaiis, violate one of God's plainest commends: "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder," Do you say, pass a law preventiiig the sale of the slave; then you destroy one of the essential elements of slavery, the chattel principle; and do what we ask, abolish slavery. Just take away the barbarous law that makes man the property of his fellow man, and thus violates the law of God, and we have no more of slavery. We said also, it causes the slave to disregard the relatioii from four to ten years, all standirig together in the bow of the boat, in charge of a man standing near them. Of the men, one was sixty, one vi^as lifty-two, three of them about thirty, two of them about twenty-five, and one about twenty years of age, as I subsequently learned from them. The two first had children, the next three had wives and children, and the other three were single, but had parents living from them. Coming near them, I perceived they were all greatly agitated: and, on inquiring, I found that they were all slaves, w^ho had been born and raised in North Carolina, and had just been sold to a speculator who was now taking them to Charleston market. Upon the shore there was a num.ber of colored persons, women and children, waiting the departure of the beat; and my atteniion was particularly attracted by two colored females of uncom- monly respectable appearance, neatly attired, who stood together, a litte distance from the crowd, and upon whose countenance was depicted the keenest sorrow. As the last bell was tolling, I saw the tears gushing from their eyes, and they raised their neat cotton aprons and wiped their faces under the cutting anguish of severed aiFection. They were the wives of two of the men in chains. There, too, were mothers and sisters, weeping at the departure of their sons and brothers; and there, too, were fathers, taking the last look of their wives and children. My whole attention was directed to those on the shore, as they seemed to stand in solemn, submissive silence, occasionally giving utterance to the intensity of their feelings by a sigh or a stifled groan. As the boat was loosed from her moorings, they cast a distressed, lingering look towards those on board, and turned away in silence. Axy eye now turned to those on the boat; and although I had tried to control my feelings amidst my sympathies for those on shore, I could conceal them no longer, and I found myself literally -weeping with those that weep.' I stood near thein, and when one of the husbands saw his wife upon the shore wave her hand for the last tim.e, in token of her affectien, his manly efforts to restrain his feelings gave way, and fixing his watery eyes upon her, he exclaimed, 'This is the most distressing thing of all! My dear wife and children, farewell ! ' The husband of the other wife stood weeping in silence, and with his manacled hands raised to his face, as he looked upon her for the last time. Of the poor women on boar , three of them had husbands whom they left behind. One of them had three children, another had two, and the third had none. These husbands and fathers were among the throng upon the shore, witnessing the departure of their S 14^ IVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERt. of marriage, and practice the consequent vice, concubinage. In our land, marriage, as a civil ordinance, they do not enjoy. Our laws do not recognize this relation amongst them; nor defend it, or enforce its duties. This would interfere with the claims and interests of the master. Hence, to use the language of the slave, they "take up with one another." And ihis continues as long as their own convenience, and that of the master, requires: either of which may sunder a relation, sacred in the eyes of God, and prolific in good to man. It is wives and children, and as tiiey took their leave of them they were sitting together upon the tioor of the boat, sobbing in silence, but giving utterance to no complaint. But the distressing scene was not yet ended. Passing down the Cape Fear river twenty-five miles, we touched at the little village of Sraithport, on the south side of the river. It was at this place that one of these slaves lived, and here was his wife and five children; and while at work on Monday last his purchaser took him away from his family, carried him in chains to Wilmington, where he had since remained iA jail. As we approached the wharf, a flood of tears gushed horn his eyes, and anguish seemed to have pierced his heart. The boat stopped but a moment, and as she left, he bid farewell to some of his acquaintance whona he saw upon the shore, exclaiming, 'Boys, I wish you well; tell Molly (meaning his wife) and the children I wish them well, and hope God will bless them.' At that moment he espied his wife on the stoop of a house some rods from the shore, and with one hand which was not in the handcuffs, he pulled off his old hat, and waving it toward her, exclaimed, Tai-evvell!' As he saw by the waving of her apron that she recognized him, he leaned back upon the railing, and with a faltering voice repeated, *■ Farewell, forever.' After a moment's silence, conflicting passions seemed to tear open his heart, and he exclaimed, ' What have I done that I should suffer this doom? Oh, my wife and children, I want to live no longer!' and then the big tear rolled down his cheek, which he wiped away with the palm of his unchained hand, looked once more at the mother of his five children, and the turnmgof the boat hid her face from him for ever. As I looked around I saw that mine was not the only heart that had been affected by the scene, but that the tears standing in the eyes of many of my fellow-passsngers bore testimony to the influence of human sympathy; and I could, as an American citizen, standing within the limits of one of the old thirteen States, but repeat the language of Mr. Jefferson, in relation to the general subject, 'I tremble when I think that God is just.' " — Quoted by Barnes. And now dear reader, it is more than probable that your silence in the church, and vote at the ballot box has sanctioned, yea. directly decreed the cruel law that thus sunders the dearest ties on earth, and the plainest command of God. And here we complain, not of tattered garments, of lacerated bodies, or of starved and emaciated frames, but of this muider oi affections; this crushing of the heart's dearest solace of e; rthly treasure? given; of this, Oh! of this Kc xlo ooinplavni. SVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY, 147 the great preservative against the abhorrent vices of concubin- age and adultery. It is the origin of those strong ties which cement and bind together society. It is the fountain of the dearest earthly pleasures that man enjoys — domestic bliss. Without it the endearing relations of husband and wife, parent and child, would be unknown. Without it man and womai^ would waader forth, selfish, shameless, and unrestrained, like «)ne vast herd of brutes. And yet the very tendency of our system of slavery is to abolish it. Christians! yea, all lovers of virtue aud order ! ! what would you think, and how would you act, did these evils exist to the same extent with the whites? And are they any the less ruinous to society^ an4 any the less criminal in the sight of God in the black maa than in the white man? How many there are in our midst who are parents, and yet know no one that they can call husband, or wife ! And how many even of those in whose veins courses much of the blood of the white man, who know not their parents ! Oh ! is it true there is a single woman in the whole south, who is opposed to the abolition of slavery, when they remember how many bosoms have been wrung with anguish at the reflection that the husbands of their choice, and sons of their body have been unfaithful, ii^ cases that never would have occurred had it not been for slavery? And I will ask one more question. Is there in our State, even amongst christians, as much regard for the purity of the marriage relation of their slaves, and the proper descent of slave children, as there is to have the best stock of sheep, hogs, cattle, to say nothing of horses? May God pardon our shameful neglect of a relation which he has so carefully guarded. 3. Slavery keeps the slave in hopeless ignorance. Most persons are agreed that this ignorance is necessary ii^ order to the continued existence, or perpetuity of slavery. Whether this be true or not, we know as a matter pf fact, that the large mass of our slaves are deplorably ignora,nt. — And we know that in some States the law positively forbids their instruction, and in all others many ^nasters are opposed to their instruction, lest they should read something which will show them their rights, and make them discontented.— And almost all consent to, and by their vote decree, that such shall be the condition of the poor unoffending slave. But should we seal up the mind, and shut the door of knowledge to the inmortal spirit, lest the slave should see his wrongs? 148 EVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY. Would we feel that we are justifiable in cutting off the hand, or foot, in order to prevent him from escaping from forced and unwilling servitude? Every feeling of our nature forbids it. Humanity forbids it, God forbids it. And is it any the less criminal to clog, to maim the mind, the soul, than the body? " If by our practice, our silence, or our sloth, we perpetuate a system which paralyzes our hands when we attempt to convey to them the bread of life and which inevitably consigns the great mass of them to unending perdition, can v/e be guiltless in the sight of Him who hath made us stewards of his grace?" This is sinful. Said the Saviour: "Woe unto you lawyers ! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." Luke 11: 52. n. Slavery is a great evil to the master and his family. For reasons which we have stated in this chapter, the slaves are often slothful, negligent and wasteful. The control and management of such, is often wearisome, and perplexing to a perilous degree. They only know its evils who try it. In view of them we have often thought of the words of Solo- mon : "Better is a httle with the fear of the Lord, than great treasure, and trouble therewith." "Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox, and hatred therewith." Prov. 15: 16, 17. Also, the power entrusted to masters, is to a great degree irresponsible. The history of man shows that such power may not be often exercised by him, without injury to his own soul, and to others. Under such circumstances, the master and mistress are more than human nature generally is, if they do not find_irritability, fretfulness, habits of scolding, pride, contempt, selfishness, hard-heartedness, and other evils constandy growing upon them. Says Jefferson, "the whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unrelenting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. Our children see this and learn to imitate it. For man is an imita- tive animal. This quahty is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive, either in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present; but generally, it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments BVILS CONNECTED WITH SI.AVF.llY. 1 40 of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves^ gives a loose to the worst of passions, and, thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances." Truly, slavery is evil, and only evil continually. Further, the children of slaveholders are frequently ex- empted from that labor which is necessary to give proper development to the constitution, or health to the body: conse- vuently, they often are weak, effeminate, and sickly. Go into slaveholdino- districts, and see the effeminacy of our females; and then to t°he public buryinggrounds andbehold the multitude of infant graves planted by sickly mothers, and you will be ready to cry out, Egypt's destroying angel is already in our land. Also, the habUs acquired under such circumstances are often unfriendly to either the acquisition of knowledge, or of property. Hence, as political economists teach us, neither this, nor any other nation can long be prosperous where one part are not producers in any sphere, but consumers of other men's toil. And hence, from this and other fruits of slavery, those States where slavery has long been in existence, are on the decline. As this part of the subject belongs to statesmen and journalists, I will hasten to notice another fact. III. Slavery is an evil to the church. 1. It keeps in our State two hundred thousand, and in the whole South three millions of slaves in total inability to read God's word. It is impossible that a people so ignorant shall ever be efficieni or useful Christians. They have neither the knowledo-e or means to become such. The large mass ot them rec^'eive no instruction, (that is, in spelling or reading,) even in a Sabbath school. In aliiost every place in the South, where there is not positive law forbidding their instruc- tion, public sentiment amounts to a prohibition equally effec- tive. But do you ask: "do they not receive oral instruction^ I answer, yes; of its Jdnd-some good truths mnigled with what we believe is revolting error— that the God of the Bible is a respcctorof persons in sanctioning oppression— the rob- bery of the slave's natural rights. Some go to the same church where their masters worship. These are the lew, who, overcomincr all the neglect and indifference shown them, press into the ^^negro-pewr (if not taken up by whites on special occasions,) or into the little galleries cut off ot the tar ISO EVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY. end. Others go to hear preacliers of their own color, who are often scarcely able to read a sentence of God's holy word, much less able to explain it. [n some places white preachers preach to them directly. Notwithstanding these hindrances many of the slaves have become Christians, exhibiting many of the essential principles of Christianity, kindness, brotherly love, humility, meekness, devotion. And under equally favora- ble circumstances I believe the negroes would be the most religious race of beings in the world. But every man knows that the efficiency of the church depends, in a great degree, upon the amount of christian intelligence in its members. But when so many are unable to read even the word of God, how can the church be efficisnt. 2. Slavery keeps many of the whites in ignorance; and thus prevents the gospel from being effective, as it would otherwise be with them. The children of the large slave- holders being raised in what is called high life, wlien educated, must be sent to "high schools" in cities or towns. The laborers of the slaveholder, being slaves, they are not educa- ted. Hence the slaveholder feels little or no interest in sus- taining a neighborhood school. The tendencies of slavery being to monopolies of land, and to the exclusion, of school going children (that is, white children,) the other portion of the neighborhood who are not able to send their children away to extravagant and fashionable boarding schools, and not being able to make a school within convenient distance, nor to defray the expenses of one themselves, their children have to do with litUe or no education. Also, slaveholders often form or accumulate monopolies of land and property. These men (for reasons before assigned, and not desiring that their laborers should be educated,) are often unwillling that their property should be taxed for general education. Hence the free school system never has nourished in the slave States, and as a consequence, the children of the poor man has to do without instruction. And hence, we have in Kentucky 45,000 white persons, over 20 years of age! who cannot read or write; and 200,000 slaves in the same deplorable condition: giving us in Kentucky, about eight per- sons over the age of 20, who cannot read or write, to one in Ohio'* in the same amount of population. In the whole of the slaveholding States we have 300,000 white persons, over the age of 20 who cannot read or write, and more than three millions of colored people in the same condition. Many of tVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY. 151 those children who have the opportunities of acquiring an education, have never been accustomed to habits of industry and application; and as a general rule, do no become thorough scholars, do not acquire more than fashion demands, or is necessary to fit for common business transactions. Hence, the author of a book, who is a native and resident of the South, is a rare occurrence. And hence, we have but ^q\y men who enter the ministry, and have to import men from the free States to fill our pulpits, teach in our schools, our academies, and cur colleges. Because the slaves are not allowed to be educated, and the white population is comparativaly sparse, Sabbath Schools are few and thinl}' attended. Hence the very fountains of the church,of early piety, and of efficient Christianity, are dried up. Does not slavery affect, yea, deeply affect, the church? 3. Slavery causes our churches to be i^'^ and feeble. In the days of the Apostle he said, "not many mighty, not many noble were called." So now, those whose minds are inflated with a "little brief authority," whose natural pride is pampered with the accumlated fruits of unrequited toil, and despisfid caste, — whose consciences are seared by repeated acts of injustice and oppression, — whose wills are made more stubborn by a life of continued dominatien; — compara- tively few such persons receive a meek and self-denying gospel. The pride cultivated, is hostile to the true spirit of the Gospel. The slaves are mere nominal members. They have no voice in the affiiirs of the Church, truth, or gospel spread. — Further, they have no means to encourage or sustain the ministration of the gospel. Here exist impossibilities to a successful and efficient gospel. Further, slavery makes our population sparse, by shutting out the artist, the mechanic, the manufacturer, the free laborer. The history of the gos- pel teaches us that it is with these industrious and virtuous classes, that the gospel makes the greatest progress. These indisputable facts existing, it is impossible that our churches should be either as numerous or efficient as they would be, did slavery not exist among us. 4. Slavery dries up the fountains of true benevolent enter- prise. The master, or man, who is taught to regard one por- tion of the human family as chattels, the mere subject of his * See the census o[ 18 iO. 153 EVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY. interests and pleasure, will not generally feel for man as man, nor often feel a spirit of true benevolence. Hence, Massa^ chusetts alone, is computed as giving more to the cause of foreign missions (and perhaps to the general cause of benevo- lence,) than the whole South. The donations here given, are generally either for neighborhood concerns, or for party movements. Even our home missions have to be sustained by the donotions of free States. 5. Slavery corrupts the Gospel. The Bible teaches us that to love God with all the heart, and our neighbor as ourselves, is the sum of all religion: — "This is the law and the prophets." See Matt. 23: 37-40, Luke 10: 27. ''This is more than all burnt offertngs and sacrifices." Mark 12: 33. These passages teach that there is no true religion without love to God, and to man "as our- selves." Without this, all else is hollow formality. We may Hilhe mint., and annis, and cummin,^^ yet Jesus will say, "Ye have omitted the iveightier matters of the law, Justice, Mercy, and Truth." And again, "Go learn what this ineaneth, I v/ill have mercy and not sacrifice." "He that loveth not, knoweth not God." Now no man, as we believe, with a correct knowledge of the nature of slavery, can love his neiglibor as himself, do justice and mercy, and at the same time, willingly enslave his fellow m_an — his neigh- bor. Yet the teaching and practice of slavery is, that man is an article of merchandise, — his interests for time and eter- nity may be wholly overlooked, in promoting that of the master: that the master with certain professions and ceremo- nies, may live in the worst form of oppression and yet be a christian. "Now as whatever gives us wrong notions con- cerning God, prevents us from feeling :and acting towards him aright, so whatever gives us wrong notions concerning our fellow man, prevents us from feeling and acting towards him aright. This being done, all the virtues growing out of the observance of the second table of the law, which is love to man, will soon die." — Fres. Blanchard, Not only this, slavery leads to a violation of the first table of the law. For "he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen." 1 John 4: 20 and 21. "And he that fa.leth in one point is guilty of the whole law." Thus slavery destroys the very heart of true religion. Like a loathsome leech, it absorbs her life's blood, and leaves her a pale, cold and lifeless corpse — a ghastly skeleton — a frame Without a heart to beat, or lungs to breathe. kvILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY. 153 Lastly, slavery banishes the gospel from the land where it is. A brotlicr, who is a minister of the gospel, and the author of a work deservedly popular, writing to me from one of the elaveholding towns of our State, says : "Slavery has driven from our SiatP to free States many of our conscientious and best ministers." And, said he, "often have I determined that I would go myself, but have been hindered as yet." This they done, because in conscience they thought they ought to speak against slavery. But the hearts of the people being olien filled with prejudice by slavery, and their minds blinded by supposed interest, these ministers could not be sustained. Further, and m >re especially, lor reasons previously assigned, liiey saw that neither the Euglish school, nor Sabbath school, nor the church, could be long healthfully prosperous. For these and like reasons, many of our best ministers, as we know, have been driven from our State. This is not all; those men and ministers who are slave- holders, or are apologists for slavery, and who occupy posts of influence, biassed by slavery, employ their means and influence to shut out those, who from love to God and man, woulti preach a whole gospel; and they introduce those who will not urge upon the people their whole duty to man as man, — who will cry peace, peace, when there is no peace— who will preach about the externals of religion, but not tha essential principle — the sum of the law and the prophets, love to God supreme, and our neighbor as ourselves. Sea Luke 10: 27. May we not then say, that Slavery is tha Hydra with a hundred heads and a thousand stings? Th3 deidly Upas that infuses death into all that comes beneath its shade, or inhales its odors? But, says one, grant that slavery is sin in itself, and sinful from the evils that necessarily and invariably flow from it; still, what shall we do? Where is the remedy? We answer, emancipation. But when and where? This we will answer in our n^xt. CHAPTER IX. REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. Slavery, as v^c have shown, is a sin against God, and againsi man. The remedy is emancipation. In this, as in every other sin, we must abandon it. If it be asked, when? Then we answer as Wayland did: "When is it our duty to obey God," or cease sinning? To this there can be but one answer^ and that is, immediately. No man who desires the favor of his God, dare do otherwise. "A reason that would be suffi- cient for delaying to obey God for a moment, would be a suffi- cient reason for disobeying him forever." Said Judge Reid (who IS the present Judge of our district,*) "When you are convinced that slavery is the greatest political evil," (even political evil) "whether sinfal against high Heaven or not, set YOURS free, let others do as they will." ***** "You will gain some credit by proving your faith by your works. But to be talking about going with the North" (that is, for emancipation) "without moving a step towards accom- plishing it, — you cannot even deceive the negroes themselves." All men, like Judge Reid, know that whenever we see a thing to be sinful, or even "/Ae greatest political evil,^^ we ought to repent of it immediately, and "bring forth fruits meet for repentance." Why, dear reader, if ackiltery, and theft, and counterfeiting, were as- publicly and extensively practiced, both in the Church and out of the Church, as slavery is, z«?hat would you think of a man who would preach the gradual abolition of such vices, — pleading that some have no other way to get their living — that the hands of some are too tender to work — and others are too old to work — and many have received these sins from their fathers, or friends, by will and inheritance; — and above all, here is the law of the land, (made * See Judge Reid's charge to the grand jury of Mason County, Ky delivered on the first day of the November term of the Circuit Court of 184'). Iwish the Judge was as sound on the moral character of ??lavery («?• hf* is on the m-^de of emancipation. REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 15| by men of like passions with ourselves;) it sanctions these practices as right; and with all these considered, I think we might continue in these practices for a while any how." You would deem such an one as worthy only of the execrations of. man, and the direct vengeance of -Almighty God. But do you object, and say it is not self, it is not interest that keeps me from emancipating mine immediately; I am looking at the good of the slave, and society. First, be sure you are really honest with yourself in saying so: for v/e have known men, when their objections were shown to be false, and their difficulties removed, and they pressed to do duty, who have obstinately refused to quit their sin, and like the young man who came to the Saviour inquiring duty, and went away sorrowing because he had possessions. Matt. 19: 22. It was self, it was covetousness, that hindered and deceived him. Second, you are not left to the privilege oi saying, it will^', be better to quit sin gradually; for God Almighty, your Judged requires immediate repentance for all sin. But let us ex- amine your objection. You say they are not fit for freedom, and it would be better for them, and society, not to have it Kow. If they are unlit for freedom, then, we ask, what has kept them from not being fit for freedom as other men? Your only answer is, slavery. Now if slavery unfits them for freedom, when will they become fit for freedom, whilst you keep them in slavery? Will you plead their unfitness for freedom as a reason why you may continue in sin, and yet continue to practice the very thing you say unfits them for freedom? You are, my dear reader, according to your own showing, chargeable with double guilt. You not only rob the slave of his liberty, but practice that upon him which you say unfits him for liberty. If you say they should not enjoy freedom because they are not educated, then on the same ground you may enslave three hundred thousand white men in the South, who are not educated — who are over twenty years of age and cannot read or v.^ite. The best way to fit men for freedom, and make them safe for society, is, to give them their liberty and treat them as men, and not as beasts. This position we will support with good reasons and facts. When you give a man his liberty, and treat him as a man, you immediately invest him with a character — a character dear to him as life; a character which he will sustain, prompted fey the principle of love of approbation, implanted in his na- 156 REMEDY FOR THE EYIL. tiire. If you reward him for his labor, he will have another iiirentive to industry, virtue and economy. If you respect all his rights, then he will have need of, and a desire for knowledge and virtue. He will make efforts to obtain ihem. To treat man thus, is the most natural and effective way to lit him for the duties of a freeman. Facts proving it. Take as an example tho emancipations given in the West India Islands. There slavery, existed for many long years; and, as it always has been, it became a great evil to the master and the slave. The people and t!ie government became convinced of it, and determined to emancipate. Two of the I-lands emmcipaled immediately, "^ the rest adopted a gradual system —an appreniiceship system of six years. After the lapse of two years, finding that those who had emancipated immedi- ately, b<)[\\ m ister and former slaves, were doing inlinitely belter than they who were grailually ceasing to do evil, the rest w:th one accord, em:incipated on the soil eight hundred thousand binvos. Thrilling was tho scene on one of the Islands. "When the hour of twelve approachetl, the mis- sionary proposed that they should kneel down and take the boon of freedom in silence. Accordingly, as the loud bell tolled its first note, the crowded assembly prostrated them- selves on their knees. All was silent, save the quivering, half stifled breath of the struggling sptrit. The slow notes of the clock fell upon the multitude, peal on peal, peal on peal rolled over the prostrated throng in tones of angels' voices, thrilling among the desolate chords and weary hearl- strinrrs. Scarcely hail the clock sounded its last noie, whe-n the lightning Hashed vividly around, and a loud peal of thunder roared alontf the sky — Cod's pillar of fire, and his Irump of jubilee. A moment of profound silence passed — then came llie burst — liiey broke forth in prayers, they shouted, they sang glory, hallelujah; they clapped their hands, leaped up, fell dovvn, clasped each other in tlieir free arms, laughed, cried, went to and fro tossing up their unfettered hands. \bove all, in broken dialect, was heard the titterings of gratitude t(» God." Yes, with gratitude to God. There, wasnt^ danger of insur- redion then. 'J'he feelings of revenjre were all lost in the ocean of love that filled the soul. Filled with gratitude to their masters and friends for the precious boon of libeity, insurrection was the last thought that could come into their ^.August 1st. 1S31. RlS;:aEDY FOR THE EVIL, 157 minds. And so would it be in Kentucky, if the shackles were struck off of every slave on lo-inorrow morning. If I do a man an act of kindness, I reasonably expect that he in return, will be kind to nie. To talk otherwise, is to talk against reason, and well known facts. The Africans are not insensible to gratitude lor favors bestowed. Every man who knows any tiling about them, knows that they are as proverbial for gratitude bestowed, as Frenchmen for urbanity, and socia- bility. They are submissive to government. So true is this that it was one of the considerations which prompted Las Casas to recommend to cardinal Ximenes, the introduction of the African into Hispaniola, instead of the Indian as laborers. It is notorious that they are humble and submis^ve above all men. So true is this, that some even plead this fact as a reason why they ought to be enslaved — saying, that God designed them to be slaves. Now w.ll any man who expects to be credited, talk of insurrection and danger in view ot these well known facts? Now what we would infer to be true, is proved hy facts. We shall show that the pecuniary, physical, intellectual, and moral condition of both master and slave — white and black, — are infinitely improved by immediate emancipation. We shall adduce testimony of such a character as to leave no ground for doubt. The French Royal Commission, presided over by the Duke of Brogle, state: — "for eight years past emancipation has been proclaimed in the slave colonies of Great Britain. 'J'hese colonies are nineteen in number, and contain eight hundred thousand negroes : * * under the influence of various climes, and of social and political cir- cumstances so different, emancipation took place every where in 1834, and has continued since that time, peacefully and without violence. It may be said, without fear of contradic- tion, that an event so formidable at first sight as the summons of eight hundred thousand slaves to liberty, on the samedaij, at the same hour, has not caused in eight years, in all the BmrUsh colonies, the tenth part of the troubles that are ordinarily caused among the 7nr>st civilized nations of Europe, by the least politiccd question that agitates, however litUe, the public mind." "Rapport fait au Ministre Secretarie d*etat de la Marine et des colonies." Quoted from an address Bent by the committee of the British and Foreign Anti- Slavery Society, to those countries of Europe that possess slave colonies. 158 REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. The same committee state: "The English apprenticeship, which iti its provisions appeared to offer belter guaranties for the protection of the semi-bondsman, than any code of slavery with which we are acquainted, utterly failed of securing those advantages which it promised. Reason and experience alike demonstrate, that no measure short of perfect freedom, and equal laws, can enable man to protect himself against oppres- sion, and to secure his just interests." In the British House of Lords, November 23, 1837, Lord Brougham said of Antigua, (one of the Islands that emanci- pated immediately,) that ''property in that Island had risen in value — exports of sugar had increased — offences of all sorts, from capital offences downwards, had decreased, as appeared from returns sent to the Governor of the colony." The Govoriior himself said: "The planters all concede that eman- cipation has been a great blessing, and he did not i^now of a single individual who wanted to return to the old system." — See Six Month's Tour of Thome and KimbaU in the West Indies. In the year 1837, Joseph Sturge, Thomas Hervey, Dr. Lloyd, and John Scoble of England, went to the West Indies for the express purpose of examining into tlie condition of the emancipated slaves, and they state: "Our opportunities of personal observation were extensive. We had the priv- ilege of free communication with the most intelligent and influential persons in the colony. There is one subject upon which all are agreed — that the experiment of abolition has succeeded beyond the expectation of its most sanguine advocates. The measure has been felt to be onfe of emancipation of ^nasters as well as of slaves. The average cost of cultiva- tion is believed to be one-fifth, or one sixth less than formerly, so that free labor is raanifesUy advantageous. Houses and lands have risen in value. Estates are now ivorth as inuch us they were formerly with their slaves attached to them^'' (so it would be in Kentucivy were emancipation to take place — no pecuniary loss). "There has been an augmentation of Che import trade of the Island." Testimony of twenty-four Wesley an Missionaries. Assem- bled at St. Johns, Antigua, Feb. 7, 1^37, they state: 1. "The emancipation of the slaves of the West Indies, ■while it was an act of undoubted justice to that oppressed people, has operated most favorably in furthering the triumphs of the gospel among the negroes, * * and in its operations . REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. -159 as a stiniulous to proprietors and other influential gentlemen. to encourage religious education and the wide dissemination of the scriptures, as an incentive to industry and good order. 2. That while the above statements are true with reference to all the Islands, even where the system of apprenticeship prevails, they are especially applicable to Antigua, where the results of the g'reat measure of entire Jreedom, so humanely and jicdiciouslij granted by the Legislature, cannot be contem- plated without the most devout thanksgiving to Almighty God." Here is the testimony of the council of a disinteres- ted nation, — -of the Governor of the Island, — of one of the first statesmen of Britain, — of travelers, — of resident planters, and of Missionaries, who travel from place to place, and mingle with the people. They testify that emancipation on the soil, and immediate, has been a blessing to both master and slave, — that crime has diminished, — that peace and order prevail, — that morals and religion are greatly improved, — that property has arisen in value, — that cultivation is cheaper, — that pro- ducts are greater, — that morals and religion have been greatly improved, — that man has been blessed, and God glorified. Pause a while, reader, until you fix ihcse facts in your mind. But does any one object and say they have had to import laborers into some of the Islands to cultivate the soil. We answer, 'tis true they have done so; and there are reasons for it — reasons which do not in the least militate against emancipation. 1. The women now being wives, and Vv^ith their husbands, the owners of houses and property, are employed in their families with domestic cares, as they should be, and as God designed them. By consequence, the number of field hands are diminished. Rut suppose there is a demand for more laborers, by the women being in their appropriate place: Then (1,) There will be employment for some good, honest, free laborer, who will come if the employer will give a fair com- pensation and treat him aright. Labor, like trade, will go' \Vhere there is a demand and proper treatment. (2,) It is better for the master to do right to his God — his fellow-man — -his country, and sufi^er, for the present, some momentary inconvenience, — some loss of expensive hands, — than to sin against his God, wrong his fellow-man, and injure the markets, trade, and general prosperity of his country. Farther, if the master has any claims to philanthropy, he should consider that those wives, husbands, and children; 150 REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. have interests!, rights, and conveniences, which should bo regarded as well as his own. In ihe scale of humanity, and of Christianity, the convenience, the interest, the rights of one man and his family, are as great and as heavy as those of any other. The riy;hts of man, the good of a countiy, and the glory of God, should never be sacrificed to a Utile momentary covetonsness of the (ew. Second reason why some Islands have had to import labor- ers. Some of the men who were emancipated have bought small parcels of land, and the culiivation of this, with the improvement of liouses, , still ihere is no ncces.-jVy for the impor- tation of foreign laborers. There are laborers enough there if Government and proprietors will do their duly; as may be seen from these facts. The freeman now performs nearly double the labor he did in a state of slavery. The mode of cultivating the soil has been greaUy improved. The plough and hoe, instead of the hoe alone, have been introduced, togeth- er with other improvements, since emancijnition took place. These greatly lacilitate labor. If Govennnent and proprietors would do their duty, there would be no need for the importation of laborers, or complaint of the condition of the emancipated. This leads us to notice the Third reason why laborers have been imported. There ar.e men there, as in other places, prompted too much by covetonsness. 'JMie Government, instigated by such persons, passed an Ejectment act, by which any laborer might be turned out of the house of proprietors in a week's notice. This, and the promotion of virtue, made it best that they should seek a home for themselves and their families. When they went to buying and building, a heavy tax was taken off of sugar-factories, and placed upon all titles to lands that might be bought, however small. On the materials with which they would want to build, was also placed a heavy duty — on some articles, such as shingles, twelve times as much as the planter was to pay for the same materia], coming from the same country, but used for staves. The Government thought it remjlDV for the evil. 16 1 best that the land should be chiefly employed in the produc- tion of sugar and rum. On this the laborer could not subsist, and had to be dependent upon foreign suppUes for his bread- stufTs — his meal, flour, and pork, or tish; on these, a heavy duty was placed. — On every barrel of pork, three dollars thirty-three cents. The taxes paid cliiefly by the laborers, on these articles, amounted, in 1842, to 127,821/. 14s. 6i.; in 1843, to 100,250/.; in 1844, to 192,517/. 125. Id. In addition to all this, they refused to give the laborer but one shilling per day for his labor and the support of his family. "^^ Was it any wonder that the laborer, under such unrighteous exactions, should refuse to labor for such men — flee to the mountains — construct houses to live in, and try to raise some- thing for him and his family to live upon? You, dear reader, would do the same. Nor is it at all surprising, if there should be want, and even sufFerinor, among these laborers, as in other countries, where governments and proprietors are oppressive. These facts prepare us to answer another objection that is going the rounds in our SoHthern newspapers, and Northern apologists for despotism. It is, that there is now, in 1848, pecuniary embarrassment in these Islands; and emancipation was therefore a bad ai t? To this we reply: 1. Will you weigh humanity, liberty, the interest of the immortal mind with present dollars and cents? The very objection shows a low and sensual estimate of man and true excellence. 2. This present distress is not attributable to emancipation, but to former bad management and late repeal of their tariff. Nothing will perhaps put this in a clearer light than the words of the Editor of the National Era, March 23, 1848. They are as follows: — " The present distress of the West Indian planters is by no means unprecedented. Under the system of slavery, according to their own statements, the reports of committees and oflicial documents, they were frequently on the verge of ruin, and their clamors for relief were as loud as they are now. In the year of 1829, the Standing Committee of West India Planters and Merchants, presented a series of papers to the Government, designed to show the deplorable condition of the Colonies, and imploring aid to save them from ruin. Of Jamaicaihey say: * See an address, delivered in London, before the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, by the Rev. W. Knibb. a Baptist Missionary in Jamaica for twentv-one years. TJ ' 162 REMEDY lOK THE EVIL. " 'For many years tlie distress of the planters of Jamaica has been accumulating, until it has reached a crisis ivhich threatens to involve all classes in ruin. The planter is una- ble to raise money to provide for his family, or to feed and clothe his negroes; the mortgagee gets no interest on the capital he has advanced; and numerous annuitants in this country look for remittances in vain.'' — Par. Pap. No. 120 —1831, ;;. 9. " Precisely the state of things now existing, as described by the London Times! "On the 28lh of May, 1830, (under the system of slavery) the Committee of West India Merchants presented a memorial to Government, in which they say that 'many estates have not paid the expenses of their cultivation for the past year ;' 'that the debt has been increased by the proprietors in conse- quence of the expenses exceeding the sale of the crop;^ that many other estates more favorably situated 'have not produced enough to pay the interest of the mortgages on them;' that the remainder of the estates still more favorably situated, have yielded so little net income, that 'great distress has fallen upon the families of proprietors;' that the result of the account of crops in 1830, 'will be more disastrous than that of the past year,' &c., &c. — and this extract was signed by twenty-six West India houses of the highest respectability. "A select committee was appointed by the House of Com- mons, February 7th, 1831, to report on the subject; and the London Reporter publishes the testimony of numerous wit- nesses examined by that committee, demonstrating a state of extreme distress in all the Colonics. Merchants had refused to grant further advances. Many of the planters were reduced almost to the point of starvation. Doubts 'had arisen of the Colonies existing at all.' Every interest was prostrated. One proprietor said the distress could not be greater. In Antigua, Monlserrat, tlie whole of the Leeward Islands, a universal bankruptcy was threatened, and it was apprehended that the negro population could not be provided for. The Council and assambly of St. Kitls say, in their memorial, that the ♦struggle is not for restoration to that prosperity which once smiled upon them, but for bread,'' and they add — ''Scarcely is an ancient name in possession of its patrimony; and those who have been driven to the possession of it, find it an incumbrance instead of payment.^ RE3IEDY FOR THE EVIL. 1 P.;i "T'le secretary of the Committee of West India Merchants said, that 'much the larger proportion of the estates was en- cumbered by debt or mortgages.' "Peter Rose, of Devereaux, said that this state of things existed, in that Island, before the conquest of 1803. "Under the system of slave labor, if we are to believe the testimony of the planters and merchants of the Colonies, of their committees and agents, of their councils and assemblies, and of the select committees of the British Parliament, the Islands were on the very brink of ruin, at the extreme point of embarrassment and distress, threatened with universal bankruptcy, with no hope of relief but from the Imperial Government. Now, if the present distress is to be attributed to Emancipation, which took place fifteen years ago, to what was to be attributed the distress of 1829 and 1830, and of the periodical crises anterior to those dates ? " How, then, are the existing embarrassments of the British West Indies to be explained? In the debates on the subject, in the British Parliament, and in the representation of the West Indian interest, the Emancipation x4ct is rarely referred to as the cause. The Committee of the British and Foreign An'i- Slavery Society charges it upon the abolition, in 1810, of the differential duties between free and slave-grown sugars. 'J'he free-trade section of the Abolitionists, dissenting from this view, assert that the colonies have been ruined by pro- tection — have so long been accustomed to rely upon Govern- mental aid, that, being thrown upon their own resources by its partial withdrawal, they naturally enough fall into embar- rassments. The causes, we suppose, are manifold. We have already seen that, before Emancipation, the Islands were liable to great commercial revulsions, occurring periodically. This will be the case in every c immunity where the credit system prevails, and especially in planting countries, where labor and capital being invested in the cultivation of one or two great staples, they are peculiarly exposed to loss and embarrass- ment, from a sudden Jail in prices. It was under this state of things that 'a large proportion' of the estates in the British West Indian Islands became encumbered with debts or mort- gages. The Emancipation Aci found them in this condition, and who could expect that it would relieve them from it? On the contrary, by entirely changing the relations of labor and capital, by altering the whole framework of society, it was calculated temporarily to increase the embarrassment. The 161 UEMEDY >0R THE EVIL, wonder is, not that such a false state of things should have resulted in this prevailing distress of 1847-'48, but that this result was not precipitated sooner. What else could be ex* pected? Encumbered as the properties were, a vast amount of cheap, protracted labor was required to produce enough to meet the demands upon them. But ihe Act of Emancipation left the peasantry, at liberty to make their own bargains. Women and children worked before; but they were now, to a considerable extent, withdrawn from field labor. This was the first step towards the elevation of the former, and the education of tlie latter. It was right, but its efFecis cm sugar planting was injurious. Again, tlie laborers had been com- pelled to work sixteen or eighteen hours before for a bare subsistence of the meanest kuid. Now, they would devote only such a portion of their time to labor, and on such terms, as would yield them a comfortable sustenance. Were they to be blamed for this? Do not white laborers act in the. same waij? Toey did right. But the effects of these changes were, a diminution of labor on the estates, and an increased outlay by the proprietors. Consequendy, the sugar planting interest was injured ; the estates became more and more embarrassed. Were it possible to revolutionize the habits of a shivehoiding community suddenly, and make those just divested of their slaves, as ingenious, industrious, enierprising, economical, as ready at expedient?, and as well satisfied with moderate profits, as those who have never held slaves, even now llie West Indian planters might have saved themselves. But instead of conforming themselves to the new state of things, and making the best of it, by conciliating tlie laborers, and taking an interest in their welfare, paying them fair wages, studying economy, and availing themselves of ma- chinery, they must have, first, a bonus of twenty millions sterling; next, regulations, designed to secure as much labor at as litde cost to them as possible, and with an entire disre- gard of the comfort of the laborers, whom they were apt to regard still as their property, of which they had been unjustly deprived; then, protection for their sugar in the British mar- ket, against all competition; and then, the importation of laborers from all quarters of the earth, so as to bring down the price of lab.or, and subject it to their control. In this W^y^ though they alienated tie native laboring population to a considerable extent, and really diminished the value of its labor, they continued to maintain themselves without any REMEDY FOK THE EVIL. 105 signal reverses till about two years since, when the protection which they haJ enjoyed in tlie British market against the si ive-o^rown sugars of Cuba and Brazil was withdrawn, and they were thrown to a great extent upon their own resources. Then began to bs developod the full consequences of a rotten system, which had been only delayed by the false policy of protection. Without enterprize or economy, with little capi- tal, no machinery, and no internal improvements, with estates encumbered by mortgages, and labor insufficient, the native laborers having been alienated and repelled by harsh treat- ment and the competition of the bru'al and stupid Coolies, the planters were suddenly subjected to competition with the sugar growers of Cuba, with their importation of Yankee enterprize and machinery, their eight hundred miles of rail- road, and their coerced laborers, workii.g night and day under the bloody lash, their ranks being tilled, as fast as they were thinned by this destructive system, from supplies from the coast of Africa. The result is before us. "The planters of the British West Indies are at least over- whelmed, and they must change their habits and entire system, before they can expect relief. The estates must pass from the hands of absentees into those of resident proprietors, who must begin de novo, without encumbrances upon ihem, with- out a reckless use of the credit system. Capital must be husbanded; industry and economy be practiced; machinery put in motion; and the laborers must be treated kindly and paid fairly." It cannot be that freedom is the cause of embarrassment. Look at the free States of our Union contrasted with the slave States. See facts gathered from the census of 1840 by the Editor of the Examiner, April 15, 1848. Agricultural products of New York, Agricultural products of, for 1839, $108,275,281. All the South, Value of Cotton Rice, Sugar, Tobacco, for 1839, $74,866,310. V\LUE OF ARTICLES MANUFACTURED. Slave States, $42,178,184. | Free States, $197,658,040 ANNUAL EARNINGS. Slave States, $403,429,718, N. & S. Carolina, Georgia Alabama, Mississippi. Lou isiana, $189,321,719 Free States, $658,705,108. New York, $193,806,432. 166 REMKDY FOR THE EVIL. CHILDREN AT SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, (fcc. Slave States, 301,172. | Free States, 2,212,444. What a contrast in wealth and intelligence, two things so essential to individual and national prosperity. Nothing but slavery causes the difference, for the south has better soil and better climate, and might have greater facilities of trade, and in every way be in the advance, was it not for slavery. But, does some one say: "ihe people in our free States, where these causes do not exist, have trouble in procuring help?" To this we reply: 1. They have not the trouble and inconvenience that we have, with our hunting, buying, selling, scolding, whipping, driving, — with slothful, unskilful, wasteful laborers: — want of .schools, churches, arts, sciences, towns, markets: — in a word, general want of individual comfort — social and national pros- perity, with constant fear of insurrection, and foreign inters ference. 2. Whether they have inconvenience or not, they get along much faster and more happy than we do. They are our superiors in wealth, education, arts, sciences, morals, and State prosperity. 3. Is it not better that a few masters should suffer a small inconvenience, rather than that three millions of our fellow- beings should suffer inconveniences a thousand fold greater, and the robbery of their dearest rights? As we have said, in the scale of humanity and Christianity, ihe convenience of one man and his family is as great as that of any other. And the man that will obey Christ's command, in "loving his neighbor as himself," will feel so. "Charity seeketh not her own." Again, the non-slaveholders, (who in our State are six to one,) suffer a great inconvenience in getting free labor- ers; because slavery makes labor disreputable, and keeps ^ away the free laborer. Is it not better that one should suffer, in common with others a little inconvenience for a while, than that six should suffer a greater inconvenience, — an incon- venience which they must continue to feel as long as slavery exists? Lasdy, who is willing, atthe/>eri7 of his soiiVs sahation., to practice a manifest sin against his God, his fellow man, and his country, rather than suffer a little temporal inconvenience? The above objection is very common in our country. Let the friends of humanity and justice be active in showing its REMEDY FOR THE EVIL* 16-?' true character. It will sacrifice right and general good for momentary ease. It is not the spirit of Christ, who was wil- ling to toil that he might save a world, and afterward enjoy the peaceable fruits of Righteousness. Not only is emancipation the policy securing prosperity, but it is safe. Safe not only abroad where there was five, ten, and in some places fifteen slaves to one freeman, but it is safe at home where there are five, ten, and in some places fifteen freemen to one slave. Nine States of our own Union have emancipated upon the soil with safety and continued prosperity: — every one of them more prosperous than the Slates where slavery exists. And from facts which we have previously noticed, we believe it would have been even better had emancipation been immediate than gradual — better to master and slave, neighbor, schools,, church and State. The freed man can live here and prosper. It is the testi- mony of a number of the best men of our country, that the free colored people of our country are as civil, as law-abiding, and virtuous, as any other people with the same amount of education. In Cincinnati, where their chance has been bad enough, there are two thousand and forty-nine free colored peo- ple. One thousand of these are church members. Five hun- dred and nine belong to temperance societies. Three hundred and sixty-nine have been slaves; tor whose^ redemption there Was paid (chiefly by themselves) the sum of one hundred and sixty-six thousand 'fifty dollars. Tliey hold proporty in the city to the amount of one hundred and fifty thousand one hundred dollars — nearly a third more property to each family of five persons, than in Liberia. They have five churches, three literary societies, and three schools. Is not this infin- itely better than slavery? The comparison reminds one of the joys of heaven, compared with the sorrows of hell. As I know from personal observation, their physical, intellectual, and moral condition is infinitely better than those in slavery. Besides, there is the inestimable boon of liberty. Its value to all men, even to the long abused and degraded slave, admits of no comparison or estimate.* We sometimes hear persons * A slave in our State, who is but fifty-six years of age. (and whose old master has been dead many years, and whose mistress died a few years since,) said to a son of the old master: "Massa B , what is going to become of me? didn't you used to say I should go free at old 168 RKSiEDY iOK THE EVIL. refer to the condition of the Negroes in what are called the camps in idams and Brown counties, Ohio, as evidence that they will do no good in a state of freedom. Now, it has been my privilege to pass through one of these setdements; and without hesitancy I will say, of all the poor, dismal, clay swamp that I ever saw human beings attempt to live in, that is the worst. And I am told, the other is no better. The colored people were taken there from Virginia, with all the degradation that slavery could heap upon them, placed in that poor swamp by those who seemed to have had no concern for them, and the wonder to me is, that they have done so well as they have. I do not believe the man lives who could make a comfortable living there. And for any man to refer to these colored people, as a fair sample of what the mass of them will do, or are doing, shows that he is either dishonest, unpardonably prejudiced, or ignorant of their true condition. In another portion of Brown county, where the land is good, and the colored people are encouraged by the kind and thrifty white people around them, tliey are doing well. An Elder in the Presbyterian Church (Old School) who is a long resident, and a substantial farmer, said to me: " In reference to the physical condition of the colored people here" (and there is not a few of them I assure you) "they don't know what want is. And as to their moral condition, it is a little better tiian that of the whites, with the same amount of education." Reader, give the colored people a fair chance, and the history of the world for it, they will take care of themselves. The American Citizen says, concerning the people of color in Philadelphia: "More than one- fourth of the whole popula- tion are members of some branch of the christian church. They have four literary societies, and one devoted to Theolog- ical studies, containing more than six hundred members in all. There are within the precincts of the city and county of Philadelphia, no less than twenty houses for religious worship. They have seven different temperance societies, embracing thousands of members. There are one hundred beneficial societies, which dispense yearly to the sick and needy an mistress' death?" "Yes," said Massa B , "but I have concluded that you are getting old, and had better be kept a; a slave, and l>e provi- ded for." The poor old slave said, "I had rather die and go to hell ! If I have to live but forty days, let me be a free man." Liberty with ALL men is inestimable. The slave alluded to is with a "kind master," if any master may be called kind : yet he desired liberty. RKMEUY FOR THE EVIL. im average of two hundred dollars each; that is twenty thousand dollars. Is not this belter than slavery? Is their condition so good even in Liberia? Still stronger. Tlie Legislature of Michigan appointed a committee to report upon the propriety of extending the right of suffrage to colored men. The committee reported favora- bly; andlfarther state: "Your committee has been assured by citizens of Detroit, well qualified to judge, and entitled to lull credit, that the moral habits of this people are better than those of an average and equal number of whites." (This has perhaps arisen from special effort on their part, and that of anti-slavery men, to encourage and aid them. But what has been done there, may be done in other places.) "The colored population of Detroit is about thre3 hundred. It has two churches, two Sabbath schools, a day school, a temper- ance society, a female benevolent society, a young men's Lyceum and debating society. Over two hundred and fi^ty— (all save one-sixth part)— regularly attend the churches." * * * "The same facts were also shown in the colored popu- lation of Washtenaw. In that county, there are many farmers of the highest respectability. They are independent in cir- cumstances, good citizens, encouragers of schools, churches and morality." A thousand examples might be adduced proving that emancipation is safe; and that the colored man can rise even here in society— in virtue, intelligence, and respectability. Nothing but an unholy prejudice prevents them from doing so here, as in other places. Governor Giles of Virginia, said: " It will be admitted, that this caste of colored population attract but little of the public sympathy and commiseration; in fact, that the public seiitiment and feeling are opposed to it." ^ "^ ^ ^ . T Yet he says: " The proportion of the annual convictions to the whole population is as one to five thousand." ^'These facts," (with other facts cited by him) he says— "serve to prove, almost to a demonstration, 1st, mat this class of popu- lation is by no means so degraded, vicious, and demorahzed, as represented by their prejudiced friends and voluntary ben- efactors. And 2d, that the evils attributed to this caste are vastly magnified and exaggerated." Letter of VV. B. Giles, Governor qf Virginia, to Lafayette, in 3S29. Under the head of emancipation we notice this fact: Withm the last forty years, emancipation has taken place in forty-five different places; and in every single instance it has been with V m REMEDY FOK THE EVIL. safety. How can any man, in view of these facts, talk aboul ♦'overturning society, and destroying our country, if we eman- cipate here"? To talk so, is to manifest either a great want of sound reflection, and ordinary intelligence ; or a willful blindness to well known facts. The colored man then, can live and prosper here; and society be infinitely more safe and peaceful than in a state of slavery. But, says one, I will go in for emancipation, if you will adopt the plan of the colonization society — send the colored people to Africa. To this we reply:- — 1. The object of the Colonization Society, as declared in its constitution, is only to colonize "the free people of color, with their oivn consent.^^ It is, therefore, no remedy for slavery. The slaves must be Jirst emancipated before they can be colonized. But, do you say, emancipate the slaves only on condition that they will, or shall, be colonized. This, we reply, would be to act the robber's part. He meets you, presents his pistol, and tells you if you will give him your money he will spare your life, or let you go free. He has overpowered you — has the advantage, and requires you to give up a natural right. Though you choose to do so, rather than meet death, yet you complain of the act as cruel, and worthy of punish- ment from God and man. You would do the same thing in quality, did you require the slave to leave the land of his birth, a land where he has acquired a birthright, a land of health and civilization — meet the perils of the ocean— undergo the mortality of a strange, hot, and sickly climate, in order to have liberty. No man can do this and do as he would be done by. Let us try it: You and I, dear reader, are, for the present, descendants of Irishmen. The descendants of the Scotch and English are in the majority. A prejudice arises against us Irish, and having the power in their favor, they decree that we must leave friends, and the land of our birth, — Gospel privileges to a great extent — meet the perils of the ocean — take up our abode among the bogs of Ireland — alledg- ing, as a sufficient reason for all this, that there is a prejudice against us, that Heaven seems to have made a distinction between us and them — we have black hair, are low in stature, square built, and just fitted to handle the shovel^ and pitch turf. Now, every m.an would see that such reasoning would be very insufficient, and such a prejudice very unjust. And yet it is the very same ground on which we propose to colo° REMEDY FOR THE EVIL» }r] liize the African. Piejudice, unholy prejudice, is at the bottom of the whole of it; and on the same ground we might colonize many of the best classes, arid associations of men, in our land. Every man who is not a criminal, has a right to liberty in the land where he is born. There he has birth- rights; and to banish him, is to inflict upon an innocent man the penalty of a criminal. Banishment has always been con- sidered a penalty for crime. I do not beheve that any man can do it and love his neighbor as himself. We have territo- ry enough here for them and us too. Do you say, "it is not prejudice with me; I only wish to promote the good of the colored man." Well, let us try this; Do you think you can aid, — can benefit him as much when you have spread a broad and dangerous ocean between you and him, as you can when he is near by you; where he has health, you have means, and the Government has plenty of land? Impossible! But do you again object, and say, "I wish to civilize Africa." Then we ask, what progress do you expect to make in civili- zing savages with those who are themselves uneducated; and whom some colonizationists have pronounced "half civil- ized;" and that, too, by sending them there, contrary to the real wishes of many? This would be like whipping slaves to make them come in to hear Massa pray. There is a better way of doing this work, — a cheaper and a far more efficient way. Employ the same money you would thus expend, in sending to Africa Missionaries whose hearts are in the work, who have piety and intelligence; and one will do more than a hundred of your colonists. Again, such colonization is notonly unjust, and unchristian, but it is a hopeless scheme; — inadequate. There are in the United States about three millions of slaves; and four hundred thousand free colored people. The increase of this part of our population, is about ninety thousand annually — increase of slaves eighty thousand — increase of free colored, ten thousand. Now ihe colonization society has been organized twenty-nine years; and in the work of colonizing more than twenty-five years.* The society has sent off four thousand one hundred and sixty-eight colonists — an average of one hundred aod sixty-six annually — not the ^ve hundredth part of the increase; much less any of the principal. In the whole * This calculation was made at the first piibhcation of th^se articl?^, 1846. 17*^ REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. twenty-fiv e years it has not taken off one-half of the mei-e^ increase of the free colored population for one year; much less any of ihe eighty thousand increase of slaves annually^ If the colored population continue to increase as it has done, (they will double themselves in less than twenty years, says the Christian Observer) we shall have at the end of forty years, fourteen millions — near the number of our present white population. Some colonizationists ask a century to complete their work. (Af. Repos. V. 367.) Then v/ith the present ratio of increase, we shall have a colored population of more than one hundred millions. Is the ColonizatioVy. Society adequate to the task? " The rustic waiting stands to see the flov/ing river dry, JVor thinks its high Ibuntaias continuous streams supply; Downvi^ard it comes and rolls, and will till time itself shall die." One of the Vice Presidents of the Colonization Society— R. J. Harper, said: "The removal of a few thousand indi- viduals will, in an evil of such magnitude, produce but little effect; it will not materially benefit this class of population themselves; and though three or four hundred thousand already free should be removed, the great political mischief among us, will be hut slightly effected." (Seventh Report, page 8. Do you say "when the society becomes more efficient, it will accomplish more?" We answer, instead of becoming more efficient, it is becoming more inefficient; and that because the people of this nation are convinced, by trial, that it is hopeless, inexpedient, and wrong. Jt is hopeless. Where are the means? In 1839 the Colonization Society, with one hundred and thirty thousand dollars received from Govern- ment for the settlement of re-captured Africans, had expended five hundred thousand dollars to build up a colony of about four thousand people: i. e. about one hundred and twenty-five d(.llars per head. Twenty-five dollars is the passage money, — the expense of crossing the ocean Then lands have to be purchased, houses built for them to live in, their expenses paid during their seasoning, their sickness, which all have with the African fever: — utensils to work with: — clothing and food until they can raise a crop. One hundred dollars is a moder- ate calculation for each colonist. Then if we could remove every colored person in the United States to-morrow morning, without delaying for further increase, it would take thre^ hEMEDY FOR THE KVIi.. ir:i hundred million four lumdred thousand dollars. Who wiU yaise the money? The North won't do it. The East won't do it. The West won't do it: and the South will say she has done her part to give up her slaves. Who will raise the money? Nobody: And there is an end of it. Suppose we had the money necessary; would the slave.r holder give up the slaves? If they do not do so now, are we to expect that whilst they find slavery a shade in the summer, and a fire in the winter: — whilst there are divines and jurists, going throughout the length and breath of the South, telling the masters that slavery is an instituiion given by Heaven to man — the Bible sanctions it — the Patriarchs practiced it — and "it is the corner Stone of our republican edifice" — under such circumstances, with such teachers, and with what daily observation teaches us, are we to expect they will give up their slaves? No!— never, until you go to the conscientious and show them that slavery is a sin against their fellow-men, their country, and their God: — to the whole mass of the people, and show them that slavery is contrary to their inter- ests, their comfort, their safety, and national prosperity. — Those who will not regard moral principle, the welfare of their neighbors, and country ; you must do a work for them at the ballot box — vote down the system. This is constitu- tional and right. The people have a right to remove in a constitutional manner, that which is a manifest injury to their country. Washington, writing to Lafayette concerning eman- cipation, in our country, said: "It [emancipation] certainly might and ought to be effected^ and that too by Legislative authority." But colonization will never remove slavery. As coloniza- tion advances, slavery will be tightened. When the free colored population are removed, as colonizationists themselves teach, "the slaves will be more secure." Hence more valua- ble to the master. Also as free laborers are removed there will be a greater demand for slave labor. Hence the slave ■will be more valuable to the master. With this demand too, there will be corresponding efforts on the part of slave breedr ers, and traders, to increase the stock. Slaves being property, like other property, will be regulated in value by want and supply. — So, colonization will but tighten slavery upon us. And at last, when years of precious time have rolled away, your money squandered, and your state impoverished, as Vir- air, and miasma, which civiliza- tion and art affords to us. And then, if that colony which went from Africa to Colchis on the Black Sea, were there hundreds of years before they were bleached, are we to expect the African here to become white in one or two generations? and that too with all their exposure to a climate, the tendency of which is to swarthiness? for the people here are not as COLOR. ■i'^i^ fair as those in England and Germany. To expect the Afri- can, under these circumstances, to put off his constitution, and become white in a space of time so short, is not only- unprecedented, but unphilosophical. That in process of time the Africans or Negroes of our country will become Hght in his complexion, we firmly believe; because we have examples of their becoming so in Europe; and because we have occular demonstration that the whitening process is going on in our own country. The present generation of Africans or colored people in our country, are lighter in their complexion than the colored people of our country were fifty years ago. Those in Kentucky are lighter in complexion than those in Louisi- ana, and South Carolina. And those who are domestics in Kentucky, are lighter in complexion than the field hands. These arc facts that no man can deny. If it be asked why do not the present inhabitants of Amer- ica assume the color of the native Indians? We answer: 1st. They are now some darker, or more swarthy, than theirfore- fathers were, who came from England, and Germany. 2. They have not had time sufficient yet, to show the full effects of the climate. 3. And still more to our purpose, the arts and comforts of civilization in giving us appropriate food, clothing, and shelter from extreme heat, or cold, — from damp vapours of stagnant waters, — the miasma of decaying veget- ation, and continued exposure to a tanning atmosphere, will prevent us from ever becoming so dark as the Indians were. In proportion too, as cultivation of the soil advances, and the country becomes drained of its marshes, and damp forests, will we be freed from excess of billions secretions, which, as we have seen, are one of the causes of dark color. Hence physicians tell us, and we know it, that people in the Eastern States, or old setded countries, are not so subject to bilious diseases, and continued excess of bile, as persons in the West, Thus every objection when analyzed, and fully tested, will be found to confirm the principles laid down in this article, as the true causes of difference of color in the human family. Finally, though there were nothing in nature's labratory by which to bleach the countenance of the colored man, still that fact would not prove that the colored people must have had a different parentage, or that their dark color is a badge of Noah's curse. Take a case. Here is a father and mother who by exposure, are diseased with scrofula: — the disease has affected the whole constitution. — It is a law of our being. 190 COLOR. thai the constitution of the parent shall be transmitted to the chiJd. All the climates in the world cannot save either parent or child from the mark. Now, because they may be thus differently marked from the rest of their neighbors, does it follow that they are not descendants of Adam? — that they are not our brethren and sisters, possessing a nature like our own? or that they are wearing Heaven's curse for Ham's sin? To state the case is but to show its fallacy: And it is equally unphilosophical for us to say, because a man has a skin alitUe different in color from our own, therefore he cannot have the same parentage; or that he wears Heaven's curse for Ham's sin. I know a man, descended from virtuous and pious parents, who has a %uit of hair fiery red, whilst that of his parents, and all his brothers and sisters, is black. Does this differ- ence of hair, prove a difference of parentage; or that he wears Heaven's curse? Look at the rest of the animal creation. Often we see the foal differ in color and bodily conformation from both dam and sire: and also different in both color and conformation from other foals of the same dam and sire. And it may take generations of careful feeding and crossing, before this prog- eny is brought, either in color or form, to resemble the original stock. To say then, that difference of color, and difference of form must have difference of parentage, and difference in nature, is not only unphilosophical, but contradicted by well known, and every day facts. In conclusion (upon the principles of African Slavery, and Revelation aside) we may ask, how do we know but that we pale, or brandy faced fellows, may be the degenerate stock? Many are of the opinion that Adam was a red man : and if so, we are about as far from the primitive standard as the black man. Further, if color is to be the standard of natural rights, and we carry out the Republican theory, that a majority shall rule, then we white-faced fellows should be the slaves, and the colored people the masters; for a large portion of the human family are colored — only a small part are white. Surely then, we all must see, that the position that difference of color should be the standard oj natural rights, is one as ridicu- lous as it is iniquitous: and I believe the time is near at hand, when to the American people, it shall be a matter of surprise that such delusion should ever, for a moment, have bestrewed the minds of an intelligent people. COLOR. 191 Josiah Priest, of New York, has published a book; the object of which is, to show that "God, in a supernatural man- ner, superintended the formation of two of the sons ot Noah in the womb of their mother, making Japheth white, and Ham black," — "born a Negro, with all the physical, moral, and constitutional traits, wliich mark and distinguish the race ; — deceit, treachery, low-mindedness, and malice." Pa. 27, 33. This supposition he attempts to establish, by saying that in the Hebrew language, names were given descriptive of the appearance and nature of things — (Pa. 32) and that the word Ham, means black. We remark: Hebrev/ words and names are not always descriptive of appearance and natm-e. — Thus, Abraham did not denote that the person of that name was literally the father of a multitude, but the name was prophetic of what his posterity should be — multitudinous. The word Tyrians did not represent a people literally made of rock, but only the people living in a city built upon a rock — (Tzor). Lybians did not denote a people literally made of the heart of the sea, but a people livnig in a country called the heart of the sea. Joseph did not mean that he was large or added, but was "prophetic of the fact that another son (Benjamin) would be added to the family" — Bush. So the word Ham was not descriptive of the person, but prophetic of the warm- or hot country in which his posterity would dwell. The primary meanings of the word Ham, as given by Gesenius, (than whom we have no better authority in Europe or Amer- ica) are, 1. adg. luarm, hot. 2. A son of Noali, whose posterity are described in Gen. 10: 6-20, as occupying the Sauthermnost regions of the known earth, thus according aptly with his name, i. e. warm, hot.^' He gives no other meaning to the word. He does not give black as even a secondary meaning, and if it is ever used to designate black in a person, it is only secondarily — as the result of living in a hot country. It is not the word for black. An entire different word is used for black — see Cant. 1: 5. His next position is, that the Copts used the word Ham to designate black, and that these Copts or early Egyptians, used the same language that Noah did. This is mere asser- tion, for Egypt was settled after God had confounded the language of men so that they could "not understand one an- other's speech." (Gen. 11: 7.) They had to form another language. His next position is, that the children or posterity of Ham, as in the Cushites, were black; because to theni 192 COLOR, was applied the term Ethiopians — stating tliat *Ethiope is a Hebrew word, and means black.' The Hebrew word an- swering to Ethiopia is Cush^ and Ethiopia itself is derived from two Greek words which mean literally, to 6i tence." — Pa. 80, S3. He says: "When the great Patriarcli was moved upon by the Holy Ghost to speak as he did on that occasion, we have no doubt but he did it with real pain and sorrow of heart." But why, if it was right as Mr. Priest says it is. Ah, it is plain that the conviction flashes upon Mr. Priest himself, that this talk is wrong. Indeed Mr. Priest says it is contrary to his "sympathies." — He is like a certain Judge in our State, who said 'the Bible sanctions slavery, but if he was going to make a Bible he should make it ditferent from God Almighty;' that is, his sense of Justice was better than God's; or at least his interpretations of the Bible. Truth is consistent with the plain principles of right, but error never is. And when we view this passage (Gen. 9: 25) as simply a form of prophecy, declaring the curse that would come on the coming generation of Canaanites for their own sins, (see Deut. 18: 12. J^ev. 18: 25,) — the act of Ham being the suggest- ing occasion, then all is right and plain. The act of Hezekiah (Isa. 39: 6) was the suggesting occasion of the prophecy of the future downfall of his kingdom, and subjugation of his children — yea, their enslavement: see the context. But was it the simple showing of his goods that brought upon the Jews such a calamity as their overthrow and enslavement by the Babyloni- ans? No, it was for the sins — the idolatry o( the people And because on this occasion it was foretold that the Babylonians would thus subjugate them, were the Babylonians justifiable in their acts? — They were punished for it. A mere prophecy justifies no man, nor set of men, in doing what is foretold, they will do: else the Jews were justifiable in crucifying Christ — the Egyptians in oppressing the Israelites. Surely the reader of Mr. Priest's book will say: Slavery is pressed if it has to be sustained by such arguments as his FORM — INCLUDING STRUCTURE OF THE HAIR, FEATURES OF THE FACE, SHAPE OF THE HEAD, AND FOOT. We know in our State, respectable and influential men, who, whilst they are ready to admit that difierence of color is the result of climate, stumble at the structure of the hair of the Negro, and other peculiarities of his person. The hair of the Negro is coarse. This is the result also of natural causes. It results from the operation of those causes which tend to darken the complexion — heat, and excess of bilious secretion. There are a thousand demonstrations of this in other animals. The Beaver taken from Canada to 196 FORM. Louisiana, exchanges his soft, warm coal of fur for a thinner suit. The Sheep taken from Thibet to Africa, exchanges his thick, soft fleece of wool for a suit of hair almost as coarse and straight as that of the Camel. So with man, — natare adapts herself to the climate he may be in. When, as a race, he has staid in that climate so long that his constitution is radically changed, then this constitution becomes transmis- sible to his posterity, let them he in what climate they may. Originally then, the coarseness of the African's hair, is the result of nature's effort to adapt him to the hot climate in which he was formerly thrown. By exposure of the skin to the air and hot sun, it becomes tough, thick, dark and dense with excess of bilious secretion. — By this process, the blood and internal organs are better protected from the rays of a tropical sun. So, also, by the same causes, the hair is made coarse, giving space for rapid evaporation, yet enough in quantity for shade and shelter, which is made perfect by its involution or nappy state. Then instead of his dark skin, and coarse nappy hair being a sign of Heaven's curse, it is a sign of Heaven's mercy and wisdom, in so forming the constitution of man, that it might adapt itself to whatever climate it might be thrown in. * It is nature's process to protect the system from injury from the direct rays of a * Mr. Priest's position is, 'that God foresavv^ that after the flood the climates would be changed, and therefore determined to create two of the sons of Noah with constitutions or natures suited for these coming climates — the white man Japheth, he made lor the cool climate, and the black man Ham, for the hot climate.' We remark: 1. They must have suffered very much, for they lived one hundred years before the flood — before this change of the climate for which they were constitu- tionally fitted, and constitutionally unfitted for any other. They must have been like fish out of the water. 2. We think poor Shem must have been very much negleeted; for he was left without this change of nature, (according to Mr. Priest, being left like his father, a red man) and must have suffered very much after the change took place. But in despite of Mr. Priest's theory, we find the Shemites living in every climate of the habitable globe, and as comfortable and healthy as any body. — The white man in the hot country, and the black man in the cold country, and as stout and healthful as the white man; and after a few generations just as comfortable in it as the white man. The truth is this, as has long been known, God has so formed the human constitu- tion that it can soon adapt itself to its climate so as to be comfortable 3nd healthy. There is no necessity then, for the fabrication of new ■^heories uncalled for by nature, and unsustained by facts. FORM. 197 tropical sun. t The coarseness of his hair is also increased by the excess of bihous secretion, as we shall see presently by a quotation from Blumenbach. The next thing which we notice in the hair of the African, is. its napped, or involved appearance. This is doubdess produced chiefly by those secretions peculiar to the black skin; which secreUons are produced by those natural causes which pro- duce the black skin. It is manifest, says Blumenbach, "that there is a strong sympathy between the liver, the labratory of the bile, and the skin; and, as the influence of the climate upon the secreting powers of the former is very great, it is proportionally great on the action of the minute vessels of the latter by which that matter is supplied to the recticular membrane, which becomes there the nutriment of the hair; and according to the qualities of this nutriment will the hair be affected in its colov and other properties." That the napped or involved appearance of the hair of the Negro, is caused by the secretions peculiar to the black skin, (which we have previously shown was produced by natural causes,) is manifest also from numerous jacts recorded in medical journals. We will mention one referred to by Dr. W. Barton of Phdadelphia, and recorded in the Medical Repository of New York. It is the case of Henry Moss of Maryland, He traveled through many of the Middle States, and was seen by a great multitude of persons. "He was a deep black Negro whose complexion changed to a dear and healthy white. This change was accomplished, not immediately, but through the lapse of several years. It was not the result of disease. He was a very healthy man, and an every day laborer. The white made its appearance in spots, and thuS; gradually spread over the whole body, the edges of the black clouds fading away insensibly. Those parts of the body most exposed to the sun, were slowest in their change; or remained black longest. As the white splotches extended over, the system, they reached the head; and wherever, and just as far as the white skin extended, "there the dark nappy hair disappeared, and a fine straight hair of silky softness succeeded in its room." — Stanhtope Smith. Nothing can prove more clearly than this, that hose causes which produced the color of the African's black skin, are the chief, if not the f We often hear it saidthit the Negro can stand more hoi sun than the white man. The above facts may account for it. 19S FORM. entire cause of the napped appearance of his hair. Another fact supporting the above position is this: as the Negroes of our country grow lighter in their complexion, their hair be- comes less nappy or involved. Again, in those portions of Africa, where the climate is cooler, there the complexion of the Negro is lighter ; and the hair proportionally straight; — showing that climate,* by affecting the secretions of the skin, is one of the grand causes of the napped appearance of the hair. When the constitution becomes thus radically changed it is transmitted to children. There may be some other nat- ural causes which aid in producing the napped, or involved appearance of the Negroe's hair. " Certain volatile and saline secretions tend to involve and curl the hair. Viscid and glutinous matters would produce a like efl'ect." Then, the napped and involved appearance of the hair of the Negro, can be accounted for on natural principles and well known facts, without the worse than useless theory, 'that they are descend- ants of a different race, or that their napped hair is a badge of Heaven's curse:' — a position destitute of the sanction of phi- losophy or Revelation. OFFENSIVE SMELL. As we have just made allusion to volatile secretions, we will here notice the offensive smell belonging to sojne of the Afri- cans. This is produced by filthin«ss of diet, and manner of living; as is apparent from the following facts : 1. Some white men, of our own country, from filthiness of diet and manner of living, are as offensive on account of their constitutional smell, as any Negro. I know an instance of this kind. 2. The Patagonians of South America, who are only of a copper color, are as offensive in their smell as any African. * This is caused by their manner of living — feeding on the rancid oil of Seals.' * Heroditus states that, "Xerxes had in the army prepared for this Grecian expedition, both Oriental (i. e. Asiatic) and Alrican Ethiopians; and adds, that they resembled each other in every outward circumstance, except their hair; that of the Asiatic Ethiopians being long and straight, while the hair of those of Africa was curled.'" It is climate that made the difference in the hair of the children of the same family; for the Ethiopians were the descendants of Cush. This Mr. Priest himself admits. Yet in different climates the children of the same progenitor, differ. FORM. 191^ 3. The Africans of the present generation in our country, have far less of that smell than their forefathers had. Those in the North, who are more cleanlj- than most of those in the South, and whose diet is belter, have less of the African smell than those in tlie South. Again, those who are domestics, whether they be North or South, who are more cleanly in ihier persons, and fed upon better diet, are less offensive than field hands. Lastly, on this point; there are hundreds and thousands of Africans in our country or nation, who are as free from the odor as white men. Now, were it true that the African pos- sesses a nature different from the white man, and this smell one of the characteristics of his nature, then as long as nature remained, he could not with any diet, or with any manner of living, lose this peculiarity of his nature. But we see he may, and does lose it. It is therefore not a part of his nature, but brought about originally by certain kinds of diet, and modes of living. This mode of living was continued by his ancestry until it affected his constitution; — this constitution was transmitted to posterity, which constitution will remain undl it is changed by proper diet, and cleanly habits. This may require a few generations with some. FEATURES OF THE FACE. If we all be descended from the same parents, it is asked, why the thick lips, flat nose, and small round head of the African, with small intellectual organs — why so different from the white man of Europe and America? We answer: this difference may be the result of climate, diet, pursuits, state of civilization, modes of living, and other like causes.* That the human system may be greatly changed in its form by climate, and other natural causes, is a position sustained by a thousand facts. The people of Kamtschatka, of Lapland, of the frozen regions of North America, and the Northern hordes of Tartars, are all low in stature; heads large, — eyes small and weak, — faces broad and sunken, — short necks, and their "hands and feet remarkably diminu- tive." Yet some of these chuckle-headed, dish-faced, squint eyed, short-necked, little-pawed, China-footed, dark-skinned, runty creatures are descended from the same ancestry of some of the f car est faces, intelligent countenances, and most * Mr. Triest denies this po.Hticn. But we will bring facta againf?! his theory. 200 JOR>L beautiful figures^ of all Europe ! ! This difference is prd- duced by climate, food, and manner of living. Whilst at temperate climate contributes to vigor of body, and enlargment of limbs, with regular and full developement of all the parts of the body, extreme cold has the opposite effect; and "the animal system under the constriction of perpetual frosts, is irregularly checked in its growth." Under the operation of such causes, the extremities, as the hands and feet, are very small; because the circulation there is checked, and very im- perfect. The blood, or nutriment, being thrown in upon the internal organs and the head, — these are always disproportion- ally large. Hence deformity. Also the natural effort of an individual exposed to continual cold, is to shrug up his shoul- ders, draw down his neck, squint his eye, protrude his eye- brows, compress his mouth, and breathe only through his nostrils. Hence by these means the face is shortened, but the cheeks become widened; — the eye-brows distended, and the eyes apparently sunken. These causes operating con- tinually, the features become established — the constitution changed. Thus we see the uncomely features, — the grbtesqe appearance of the Tartar and Laplander, are the result of natural causes. And if this Laplander were translated, with his wife, to Europe or America, and should these give birth to a progeny, this progeny would be in features, Laplanders still; and would continue so for generations, until chmate, civilization, and habits of living should remodel the constitu- tion. The above positions are confirmed by another fact, which we may take from among a thousand such. It is this: those Chinese families who removed into that region of Tar- tary, north of the great wall, "in no very long period of time, became perfectly assimilated in their figure and aspect to the native Tartars." The defection of circulation, and dis- tortion of countenance is increased by poverty of diet. Where the food is scarce and mean, the blood will be proportionably impoverished and limited in circulation. The countenance is also distorted where there is hunger, or bodily pain. This distortion is not relieved by a national standard of beauty, which requires pleasant looks, and grateful smiles, but gener- ally, the most hideous appearance is the most desirable to be attained by a savage and superstitious people. These causes operating continually, the features become established, and transmissible to posterity. form; ^oi in like manner climate and other causes produce the Negrd ibrm and complexion. The natural etfort of every man, when pressed with heat, as the Africans are in Interior and Western Africa, is to leave the mouth open, the lips distended, the nostrils extended, or dilated. As a consequence, the lips being left distended and swollen by heat, will become thick; and as these thicken, and the nostrils dilate, the nose must become flat: for, "as the distention of the features in one direction naturally tends to produce a correspondent contraction in an- other, the protuberance of the mouth and the turgidness of the lips, or any great prominance of the cheek or dilation of the face, is commonly conjoined with a proportional depres- sion, shortening or sinking of the nose." "And almost all PEOPLE within the Torrid Zone have the mouth larger, and the lips more protuberant than nations within the temperate latitudes." Again, in the language of Volney, "The coun- tenance of the Negro represents precisely the state of con- traction tvhich our faces assume when strongly affected by heat; — the eye-brows are knit, the cheeks rise, the eye-lids are drawn together and the mouth pouts out. The contrac- tion to which the features are perpetually exposed in the hot cUraates of the Negroes, is become the characteristic of their countenance." This position, thus confirmed alike by philosophers and historians, may perhaps receive additional strength by some well known facts. There are other causes which tend also to make difference^of feature, and form; — such as quality of food — state of civilization, and modes of living. This is supported by facts drawn from the history of other animals. "Certain it is that neat cattle, horses and other domestic ani- mals, turned into the woods in the West of Carolina, in Lou- isiana, and other uncultivated parts of America, where they find but a scanty supply of food, and are liable to many acci- dents from their feebleness at certain seasons of the year, and the want of human care, not only become deformed and diminutive themselves, but, although brought back from their wild and savage state, and placed in the most favorable cir . cumstances, will propagate a diminutive and dejormed offspring for several generations'' Why should it be thought strange, that climate and certain kinds of fbod and modes of living, should affect the features of the face; and indeed the whole constitution of man, when we know that there are medicines which affect only, or chiefly, Z 202 FORM. certain parts of the human system; and that there are cer- tain localities, which induce a certain kind of disease, and affect chiefly, one part of the human S5'stem? "Buffon assures us that the beautiful form of the Barbary horses, soon disap- pears when they are transferred to France. The head of that animal reared in Naples, assumes very much the con- figuration of that of a ram; and in Hungary the under jaw is seen to protrude forward considerably beyond the upper" 1 "In some counties in England the horns of their black cattle are remarkably long, and embrace a wide space within their curve; in Iceland these cattle are wholly destitute of this excrescence." This is attributed only to climate, and modes of living. Foster remarks of the dogs of Otahitee, which are kept with their hogs and poultry, merely for food, and which are nourished chiefly on fruits and roots, the Island furnishing little or no game, have become most inactive and lazy animals. Their heads grow larger than is common to the species; and, in their extreme sluggishness they are hardly ever heard to bark, but utter their languid and uneasy feelings only in a kind of howling." Here the very form of the dog is varied, and the very characteristics of his nature greatly changed: and all this by climate, food, and manner of living. Manner of living, (including under it pursuits, religions, de- grees of civiUzation) greatly affect the features of the face. "The noble or miUtary class in India have been pronounced by some travelers to be composed of a different race of men from the populace, who are their traders and artizans; because the former elevated by their rank above them, and devoted only to martial studies and achievments, are distniguished by that manly beauty so frequently found united with the profes- sion of arms; the latter, poor and laborious, exposed to innu- merable hardships and privations, and left, by their laws and their religion, without the hope of improving their condition, or the spirit to attempt it, have become timid and servile in the expression of their countenance, diminutive, and often DEFORMED 2/1 their persons, and marked by a deeper shade than their superiors in their complexion.'' It is found by observation, that those white men who have been taken in infancy, and grown up in the habits of savage life "universally contract such a resemblance of the natives in their counten- ance, and even in their comj)lexion, as not to be easily distin- guished from them; and afford a striking proof that the differ- enee of physiognomy depends greatly on the stutt of society. '[ FORM. 203 4 multitude of fads migiit be collected proving that climate, food, and modes of living have a powerful influence in mod- eling the features of the face, and general form of the body. And whether we are able to give the philosophy of these variations or not, the existing fact we cannot deny. How often do we meet with white men of our own country, born of the same parents, yet from some natural causes before, or after they are born, are entirely different from the rest of their brothers and sisters in the features of the face, size of the body, and strength of intellect: and this peculiarity is trans- missible for generations. But does this diff'erence prove diff'erence of parentage, or presence of Heaven's curse ?- Certainly not. FORM OF THE HEAD. The head of the African or Negro, is said to be small, especially in the region of the intellectual and moral faculties. Admit this to be true, and it is just what we may expect from natural causes — his condition in life. A law of our physical nature is, that exercise gives developement and strength; and slothfulness, or inactivity, is followed by dimin- utiveness and eff*eininacy. Thus the hand of the idler is small and weak; whilst that of the industrious and laboring man is large and strong. The same laws govern the head. In the case of the Alncan, for unknown centuries, he has lived in a state of savagism. Hence but little exercise of the moral faculties: — As a consequence we might expect them to be small. Living in a tropical climate, where nature provides a continuous and bountiful supply of food^ and where little or no eff'ort is made for clothing, there is but very little to employ the intellectual organs. The animal organs, in such a state, would be chiefly employed; and according to another law of our nature, and to which we have before alluded, the developement of these, would be at the expense of a relative diminution of the intellectual and moral organs. Hence we may expect in the African that the head in these regions will be small. But as these organs have diminished in the case of the Western African by neglect, they may be hnjjwved by exercise: and facts will show that the African is as cer- tainly susceptible of improvement in these faculties, as the white man, in the same state, or under the same circumstan- ces. But more of this hereafter. 204 ¥ORM, That the form of the scull may be materially affected by- climate, state of civilization, pursuits, and modes of living, is, a position amply sustained, not only by philosophy, but also, by indisputable facts. There is as much difference between the heads of the Laplanders * and some of the present inhab- itants of Europe, as there is betweei) the Negro and the same Europeans: and yet it is known that these Europeans and the Laplanders have the same ancestry — are descendants of the same forefathers--" the Huns." The descendants of those Chinese, who migrated to Northern Tartary, are as different from the residents of China, in the form of their heads, as the Negro, and white man of Anierica. And yet these Tar- tars and Chinese have the same origin. These facts are against the theory of Mr. Josiah Priest. What has produced these differences? Every man has to admit that they are produced by cUmate, food, and manner of living. Again the descendants of those Portuguese who went to Congo in Africa, some thre^ ceaturies since, "have so degenerated in complexion, in the figuve of their persons, and their habits of living, as to be no longer distinguishable from the native tribes of Hottentots, who ^re among the filthiest, the most Offorvfied and savage of mankind y What has changed the Portuguese into "i/ic figure'^ of the Hottentot, and made him the mosX^^ deformed'* of mankind? It is climate, food, and manner of living. Lastly on this point, we know that as the African in our own country is made acquainted with moral principle, and is called upon to exercise it, and as by acquaintance with science, practice of arts, or employment in such pursuits as require ex- ercise of the intellect, the moral and intellectual organs become proportionally developed; thus proving that there is nothing in his nature which hinders him froni attaining, in the lapse of generations, the same standard of Ipodily configuration as that of the white man. Even no*v', we know instances in the South, of some colored slave?, vyhose intellectual and moral organs are better developed than their masters; and if cere- bral developments are to be the standard of natural rights, then the relations of these masters and slaves ought to be changed. If it be said that the skull of the African is thicker than the white man, then we answer, that is just what we may expect to result from well known, natural causes. The skin, as we have noticed in a previous number, becomes thicl:; I See page 199. FORM. '405 and tough by exposure. So with the skull, and all other bones of the human system. The skull of the Turk is very thin, soft, and white; because the head is wrapped in a^ turban, and worn by a slothful and sensual creature. It is never so thick as those nations who leave the head exposed. The white man of Europe and America, has his head less exposed than the African; hence the skull will not be so thick and dark. Historians tell us that "the husbandman, in turning up the fields on \vhich the battles of Alexander and Darius were fought, could easily distinguish the skulls of the Medes frorr^ those of the Greeks by their extreme fragility." The Medes at that time were, when at home, literally "Hving in the shade," and revelling in voluptuousness. According to the argument of some men, this difference of skull ought to prove difference of origin, yet as matter of fact we know that their origin was the same. The Medes were descendants of Madai. The Greeks were descendants of Javan, and Javan and Madai were sons of JapI.eth. This difference pf skull then is pro- duced only by climate and modes of living. THE FLAT FOOT. The last feature \ye notice in the physical structure of the Africm, is the large flat foot. This too is produced by natural causes. The foot and hand, as in the case of the Laplander, may beconie small, as we have seen, by the continual application of external, natural causes. It may be- come small by the continual application of artificial causes; — as the bandages of the Chinese. This may be continued until the constitution of the foot shall be changed. This con- stitution will be transmitted to the child. 'That the head may be affected in the same way, by application of boards and bandages, is a position supported by Hippocrates, Aristottle, Pliny, Haller and Buffon.' Certain it is that the feet and hands may become constitutionally small, by the constant pressure of natural or artificial causes. This much is matter of historic fact as in the case of the Laplander and others. Now the opposite of this is equally true. When the foot is continually subjected to labor, and untraraeled either by shoes, bandages, or the constriction of frosts, the foot will spread out and grow large. As in the case of the African, where from earliest infancy to old age, the foot never wares a sock or shoe, but even while the bones are young and tender, is continually- pressed upon hot earth and burning sands; we are to expect 206 FORM. as a natural consequence that the foot will become flat anc5 large. That this is the chief cause, is apparent from the fol-. lowing facts: 1. In our own country, those persons who go bare footed all the spring, summer and fall seasons, find their feet spread out to a much larger size, and become more flat than those who wear socks and shoes. 2. I know some white men whose feet are as flat as any Negroe's. And I will show them in Kentucky too, if necessary. I know an- other white man, who is a most perfect gentleman in his manner — unblemished in his moral and religious character — one of the finest scholars in the United States, and justly reputable for his talents as an author, yet, his foot is so flat, that with the middle of it, he is said "to make a hole in the ground as he walks." Does this prove that he must have difl'erence of parentage from the rest of white men, or that he wears Heaven's curse? Surely then, the policy of graduating natural rights according to the shape of the heel, should ever be held as the climax of ridiculousness. INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY OF THE NEGRO. ^♦Was it not for the idea of the essential superiority oX one class of men over another, slavery could not long exist." — Barnes. Some men claim that the Negroes are a difierentrace from the whites, and may be enslaved, because they are inferior in intellectual capacity. This decision is generally made by in- terested or prejudiced judges, whose fitness to decide, might be questioned before their decision is attacked. The decision too. is made upon principles woefully defective in logic. — These judges reason as though Negroes had enjoyed the same advantages which the whites have; whereas the Negroes have for centuries been shut up in ignorance, poverty, and slavery, whilst the whites have enjoyed the facilities of civil- ization, of education, wealth and liberty — causes which will always produce distinguishing effects. There is no one position more clearly established by facts than this: the intellectual capacity of an inclividt(al, or a people^ depends^ in a great degree, upon the state of society in which they live, — the amount of liberty which they enjoy, the facilities for acquiring knowledge; — the peculiar circum- stances with which they are surrounded. Thomas Jefl?erson and Stanhope Smith, recognized the truth of this position, when they so successfully met the taunt of Raynal. l^aynel: INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY 207 taunted the Americans, then, with not having "produced end celebrated man." Said Jefferson and Smith, "when America shall have existed a civilized nation as long as Europe, and enjoyed the same advantages, she will have celebrated men." Said they, "it is not to be expected that, that state of society in which men are ranging the forest for game, and pressed by incessant wants; or on the other hand, occupied in perpet- ual labors in clearing and bringing into a state of cultivation, the soil of a new world, should produce such poets as Homer or Pope, such philosophers as Aristotde or Locke, or such orators as Demosthenese or Chatham." It was the stale of society that forbade the evolution of genius, or great "men- tal capacity." It wss not the want of natural capacity. Why is it that Egypt, "the cradle of science," the "masters of Greece herself," is now sunk in abject ignorance, a poor, groveling, sensual people, without one star in the world's gal- axy of great men? It is the state of society, — the bondage of her people; — not want of natural, or original capacity. Why is it that Greece, once the "home of genius," is now the abode of ignorance, and degradation? "Are the modern Greeks of the same race with those republican heroes who expelled the Persians from their country, with those illustri- ous scholars, among whom Socrates and Plato only shone in the first rank? Yes, they are the same people, descendants of the same illustrious ancestors. But why is it that we do not find among thenl a Homer, a Demosthenes, a Henophon, a Phidias?" It is because they are the "degraded subjects of Turkish despotism^ Here are facts worthy to be remem- bered: — fscts showing that the intellectual character of a peo- ple is greatly dependent upon the state of society-r-facts showing that the brightest geniuses may be sunk by despo- tism. It is despotism that has degraded the Grecian. It is despotism that has, and yet continues to degrade the African. The state of society determines in a great degree the intel- lectual capacity of a people. Had Jefferson remembered this, (a position which he granted in his "notes on Virginia") it would have saved him labor and reputation. After having admitted that the intellectual capacity of a people, or race, will depend in a great degree upon the state of society in which they live — "that it is right to make p-eal alio wcu ice for the difference of condition, of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move." Still after this he re- |}roaches the "negro" slaves in our own country, for being )t6S OF THE NEGRO. inferior, not only to the whites, but to the Indians, and slave I of Greece and Rome: — yet the condition of all these, wa^ more favorable to intellectual developements, than that of the slave of our country. The Indians of America, as Mr. Jef- ferson remarks, exhibit some of the finest flights of imagin- ation, and some of the boldest strokes of oratory." Yetj they are dependent upon the state of society in which they live for this: for, says Stanhope Smith, "we perceive these vigorous eff'orts of soul, only while they enjoy their rude in- dependence, and are employed in their favorite exercises of hunting, or of war, which give ardor to their sentiments, and energy to their character. Whereas, if you cut them off from^employments which, along with conscious freedom and independence, often awaken the untutored savage to the boldest enterprizes; if, in this condition yoU place them in the midst of fi civilized people with whom they cannot amalgamate, and who only humble them by the continual view of their own inferiority, you, at once, rnnihilate among them all the noble qualities which you had admired in their savage state; and the Negro becomes a respectable man, compared with the Indian. Of °he truth of this remark, we have striking examples in the remnant of a small tribe in the State of New Jersey, now called the Brotherton Indians; and many tribes who wander along the banks of the St. Lawrence, within the province of Lower Canada. They afford a proof of the deterioration of the mental faculties, which may be produced by certain states of society, which ought to make a philosopher cautious of of proscribing any race of men, becausa their unfortunate con- dition has presented to them no incentives to awaken genius^ or afford no opportunities to display its powers." In comparing the slaves of America with the slaves of Greece ana Rome, Jefferson makes no allowance for the »*difference that must exist between enslaved savages, destitute of the first elements of liberal knowledge, and held in contempt by their oppressors, and an ingenuous and enlightened people, cultivated in the schools of philosophy, and practised in all the liberal arts, reduced to slavery by force of arms; and, even in slavery, respected by their masters? Epictetus was, indeed,- a philosopher, Terrence and Phoedrus were poets, and many 6i the most eminent artists at Rome were slaves; hut they luere philosophers, and poets, and artists before they BECAME SLAVES." There is a vast difference in the condition of the two classes of slaves: — between a people whose fore- INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY 209 fathers had enjoyed liberty whh its attendant privileges for generations, and who themselves had breathed the air of liberty until they had ripened into manhood, and whose geniuses had been stimulated by reward, by family preferment and honour in the nation, there is a difference between the condition of these, and a people whose forefathers have been kept in bondagfe, with all its attendant evils, for generations, who have been doubly cursed with the slave trade, and the vices of Europe; and then the slave fettered from birth to gray hairs, by the imbruting laws of American slavery. Can we expect genius to flourish under such circumstances? Homer said "when Jupiter condemns a man to slavery, lie takes from him half his mind." Every case to which we turn our attention, will but confirm the position, that the difference of intellectual capacity of nations, depends in a great degree, upon the state of society, — the relative advantages for acquiring knowledge, or develop- ing intellect. We speak as our opponents do; not of individual exceptions to a general rule, but we speak of tribes, of na- tions of people. Why is it that the present enlightened and refined nations of Europe differ from their forefathers? — those ignorant, and rude barbarians who had not so much as the "knots quipos of Mexieo, or the runick stick of the Scandinavians." Is it because they are a difierent race of people? No, they are the same people: but living in a different state of society, liv- ing under a different government, with greater faciUties, and encouragements to intellectual effort. But does some one ask, is the Negro of Africa, the slave of America, susceptible of a high state of refinement, and intellectual culture ? We answer: Facts prove that he is. We will first decide what constitutes a Negro. A black skin does not constitute a man a Nefrro for the Jews in Hindostan are black; and the Arabs in the province of Yemin are black. Matted or curled hair does not form the distinguishing trait of the Negro: 'for some of the Indians of India have curled or matted hair.' Asiatic Researches by Francis Wilford,--Quoted by H. Gregoir. The distinguishing features of the Negro are generally high cheek bones, broad flat nose, thick lips, and with these will generally be found a dark skin (varying according to climate) and curly or matted hair. With this outline Volney says the Copts (who were the original and true Egyptians) agree. " They have the same yellowish and smoky skin,^ a pufli'ed A2 210 OF tUE NEGRO. up visage, a large eye, flat nose, thick lip, in a word the mulatto figure." "The same observations induced Ledyard to beheve in the identity of the Negroes and Copts. The ancient Sphynx as examined on the spot by Norden, Niebur, Cassas, and since by Volney and Oliver, was pronounced by these men to be the figure of the Ethiopian or black race now slaves." H. Gregoir. " These Egyptians," says Gregory* "were, in the opinion of many writers, no other than Negroes, whose native features were changed and modihed by the suc- cessive mixture of Greeks, Romans and Saracans." 1. 'Jiie first fact we notice is, that this people, the admitted descendants of Ham, and decided by travelers and historians to have possessed, as early as the days of Heroditus, the essential features of the Negro: — "Who were Negroes? — these were the first renowned teachers of the arts and sciencs" — "the people among whom Pythagoras and other Greeks traveled to learn phylosophy." Volney and Oliver conclude that to the black race, now slaves, we are indebted for the arts and sciences, "and even for speech." See travels of Oliver and Volney in Egypt. What makes the black race now differ from their ancestors? — It is, (as with the present Grecians compared with their Ancestors, the reverses of for^ tune — the state of society, the limited advontages they enjoys— not want, originally, of intellectual capacity. 2. A second fact showing that the Negro is susceptible of a high state of intellectual culture, is. that Negro children in Schools, have made equal progress with white children, where they have liad equal advantages. Wiiberforce, in conjunction with many members of a society occupied with the education of Africans, estabhshed a college at Clapham, near London. H. Gregoir says, "I visited this establishment to examine the progress of the scholars; and I found that between them and European chil- dren, there existed no difference, but that of color. The same observation has been made at Paris in the ancient col- lege of La Marche, where Coesnon, formerly professor of the University, had united a certain number of Negro chil- * As the people of this lii{ure and Color advance to the Interior or Western part of Alrica, where from local causes the clinnate is hotter, there the coniplexion chances from mulatto to black; and the hair liQCom^'s nvre niattod. INTELLFX'TUAL CAPACITi' 2U dreii. Many members of the National Institute, who have also carefully examined this college, and traced the progress of the scholars in all the circumstances of life in their partic- ular classes, and public exercises, will give testimony to the truth of this position." "Again," says the same author, "This has been proven at a school in Philadelphia, taught by Brissot; — a true republican of rigid probity." The same fact has been established at Boston, by Giraud, the French Consul there, in a school of four hundred "Negro children." The same is now being established in Cincinnati, in a school conducted by brother Hiram Gilmore. Some of our readers will remember to have seen the posi- tion confirmed by the remarks of one of the Editors of the Watchman of the Valley; and these remarks approved, and reaffirmed, by Mr. Fowler, the distinguished Phrenologist of the age, in one of his late journals. That the Negroes are susceptible of equal mental development v%rith the whites, is a position sustained by a host of such names as Ramsay, Hawker, Beckford, and H. Gregoir. "Wadstrom claimed that the blacks have, in this respect, a superiority; and Skip with, the American Consul is of the same opinion." I suppose that equality of mental capacity, after the lapse of several generations of mental culture, is all that sound philosophy would lead us to expect in them as a race, I speak of the race, not of indivividual exceptions. Jf the whites were kept in ignorance for generations, and the blacks educated for generations, it would take generations to bring the whites as a race up to the last generation of educa- ted blacks. 3. A third fact proving the intellectual capacity of the Negro, is, that a multitude of them have been distinguished as scholars, heroes, artists, philosophers, and poets. If there were any thing in the nature of the African which made him different from, and inferior to the wiiite man, then no one of the race could be expected to go beyond nature, and' be equal to mediocrity of whites. But we shall see there is no such impediment in his nature. TertuUian was a native African; yet, " one of the most learned men of the primitive church;" and "one of the most eloquent defenders of the doctrines of Christianity." He was the author of many valuable works. St. Augustine was an African. — Born A. D. 354, at To- gasta, a city of Numidia, in Africa. Says Mosheim, "a 212 OF THE NEGRO. variety of great and shining qualities were united in the character of that ilhistrious man." He was at an early age elecied professor of Rhetoric at Milan. There he became a CJn-istian, and was soon made Bishop of Hippoo, in Africa. "He became one of the most celebrated fathers of the church, \yhose writings for many centuries, had almost as potent an influence on the religious opinions of Christendom, as those of Aristottle, exercised over philosophy." He was a man not only of scholarship that made him a reputable critic and ex- pounder of the Scriptures, but a man of vigorous intellect, and active piety, that enabled him to do more than falls within the capacity of most men. Besides the labors of a pastor and of a bishop, "the hearing of the cases of hundreds that crowded his house," he left on record, "two hundred and seventy-two treaties on different subjects." "Anthony WilHam Amo, born in Guinea^ in Africa, was brought to Europe, wehre he was educated by the Princess of Brunswick. He embraced the Lutheran religion, pursued his studies at Huh, in Saxony, and at Wirtemburg, and so distingushed himself by his good conduct and talents, that the rector and council of the University of the last mentioned town, thought themselves obliged to give a public testimony of these, i^ii a letter of felicitation." Amo skilled in the knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, delivered with success, "private lectures on philosophy, which are highly praised in the same letter. In a syllabus, published by the Dean of the philosophical faculty, it is said of that learned Negro, that having examined the systems of ancients and moderns, he selected and taught all that was best of them. In 1744, he was made a doctor at Wittemburg. He there published a dissertation on the "absence of sensation." — "Was fond of abstruce studies." "In a letter which the President addressed to him, he is named vir nobillisme et CLARISSDIE." 'Thomas Fuller, an African slave in Virginia, possessed one of the most remarkable minds for facihty and accuracy of cal^ culation, ever known in the United States.' "James Derham, originally a slave at Philadelphia, was sold to a physician, who gave him a subaltern employment .IS a preparer of drugs. — Was again sold to Dr. Dove of New Orleans— Learned in languages, he spake with facility En- ghsh, French, and Spanish. In 1788, at the age of twenty- one years, he became the most distinguished physician at IXTELLKCTUAL CAPACITY 213 New Orleans." "I conversed with him on medicine," says Dr. Rush, "and found him very learned. I thought I could give him information concerning the treatment of diseases, but I learned more from him than he could expect from me." H. Gregoir, Page 182. Hannibal was an African, a native of Carthage, a city in Numidia. He was one of the most skilful Generals that ever lived. Rome never met such an enemy — one she so much dreaded. His skill in Generalship, was equalled only by his intrepid valour, his undaunted courage. ^ Touissant Louverture was a negro, he had worn the chains of slavery for a time in St. Domingo. He, with Raymond, the Mulatto, associate of the National Institute, formed a democratic constitution for St. Domingo." "His bravery, and that of Rigard cannot be contested, for it had been displayed on many occasions. Said another writer. "Touissant, at the head of his army is the most active and indefatigable man of whom we can form an idea. His great sobriety, the faculty, which none but he possesses, of never reposing, the facility with which he assumes the affairs of the Cabinet after the most tiresome excursion, of answering daily a hundred letters, and of habitually tiring five Secretaries, render him so superior to all those around him, that tlieir respect and submission are in most individuals carried even to lanaticism." Napoleon was probably not his superior in any respect. We might speak of the consummate skill, the martial bravery of Mentor, John de Bolas, Cudjoe, Oronoke, Oge, Henry Diaz, "who is extolled in all the history of Brazil," of Alexander Dumas,"' named by Bonaparte, the Horatius Coeles of the Tyrols." The negroes have intellecrual capacity by which they would be successful in the useful arts, and in the science of govern- ment. "Bosnian,- Bron, Barbet, Holben, James Lyn, Kiernan, Dalrymple, Towne, Wadstrom, Falconbridge, Wilson, Clark- son, Durand. Stedmand, Mungo Park, Ledyard, Lucas, Houghton, Horneman; all of whom were acquainted with the blacks, and having lived among them in Africa, give testimony of their talents and industry. Examine the authors we have cited: from the general history of voyages by Prevot, and the Universal History, the production of an English author, and the narrative of depositions made at the bar Parliament; all speak of the dexterity with which negroes tan and dye leather, prepare indigo and soap, make cordage, fine tissue, excellent pottery ware, although ignorant of the turning machinej arms 214 ^I THE NEGRO. of white metal, instruments of agriculture, and curious works in gold, silver, and steel. They particularly excel in filigrane work, One of the most striking proofs of their talents in this line, is their method of constructing their anchor for a vessel." Dickson linevv among them jewelers and skilful watch- makers. "In reading Winterbotom, Ledyard, Lucas, Hough- ton, Mungo Park, and Horneman, we find that the inhabitants of interior Africa, are more virtuous and civilized than those of the coasts. * In the industrious race of Accas, who occupy a fertile promontary of Cape Verd, they have an organized republic, 'l^e Foulahs have a large kingdom with populous towns. In Temboo, Labys, and almost all the town of the Foulahs and in the Empire of Banon, there are schools.— »'Barrow describes the Barolons as advanced in civilization, who have no idea of slavery, and among whom are great towns, where different arts flourish." The inhabitants of Sierra Leone and Liberia are negroes; yet have proven to the world, not only that they can advance in intellectual culture and civilization, but also in the science of government. Seldom do we hear a colonization speech in our own country without hearing of the intellectual and moral virtues of Governor Roberts of Liberia, who is a negro, extolled in the highest manner. The Sovereigns of Europe, or the Governors of our own republican Stales are scarcely considered his superiors. The colonists are held up as a law- abiding, virtuous, and prosperous people. Query: Could not this same people be law-abiding, virtuous, and intelligent in America? There is surely nothing in the climate, soil, or atmosphere, that would prevent them. There is nothing to hinder them, that I can see, but slavery and an unholy prejudice. * It is the slave trade, and the vices introduced by Europeans and Americans, which make the Africans along the coast so vicious and degraded. They are not so in the interior. Proyatt, in his history of Loango says, "if the negroes, who inhabit the coasts, and who associate with Europeans, are inclined to fraud and libertinism; those of the interior are humane, obliging, and hospitable."' 'Doctor Newton says the negroes on the Gaboon, are the best race of men that exists."' — ■ Ledyard says the same of the Fculahs, w^iose government is paternal. — •'Adanson, who visited Senegal, in 1754, andv/ho describes this country as an Elysium, found the negroes very sociable, obliging, humane, and hospitable; their amiable simplicity, says he, recalled to me the idea of the primitive race of man: I thougnt I saw the world in its infancy." Oh! it is slavery that has degraded the poor African. iXTELLECTUAt, cArACITV 215 Judge Bullock, in his late address before the Colonization Society of Kentucky, has told us why it is that the colored man in our country is depressed intellectually and morally. The Judge says, "/ie (the African) is oppressed.'' The mo- tives to exertfon, and the rewards of virtuous ambition are dinied him. His pride of character is sapped at the root, and has nothing to sustain it. Tell me not that the cause is TO BE FOUND IF THE INFERIORITY OF HIS NATURE. That nature is the gift of God, endowed with the capacity and clothed with all the attributes of man. * * * * '* This truth is indellibly inscribed upon the page of history. Carthage, (in Africa,) once disputed with Rome the supremacy of the woild. The rugged and snow-clad summit of the Alps, no less than the sunny plains of Italy, has been rendered classic ground by the impetuous valor of her sons. Neither the wise and skilful retreat of a Fabius, nor the heroic firmness of a Scipio, could save the Roman legions from the bold assaults of Numidian and Carthagenian valor. In boldness and intrepidity of character, in indomitable courage, in mihtary genius and commercial enterprise, Africa chalenges a com- parison with the proudest nations of antiquity. She too, was once the seat of science. That now dark and benighted land has given to the world the illustrious names of a Turtullian, a Cyprian and an Augustine." Did space allow. We might speak farther of the poetic genius of Beronicus, Bloomfield the plowman, Capitein, Francis WilHams, Phillis, Wheatly, and Hubert Pott, "the father of eligiac poetry in Holland." We might speak of the eloquence of Othello, of Ignatius Sancho, and of a number of negroes now living. But enough has been shown, to convince any unprejudiced mind that the negroes have capacity for the highest mental and moral improvement. Only free this capacity from the causes which now weigh it down, and it will soon develope itself. — Not more certainly will the bursting germ shoot into a magestic and beautiful tree, when the rock or matted sod is moved from off it, than will the soul of the negro shoot into intellectual and moral greatness, when freed from the incubus of slavery, and the withering blight of unholy prejudice. — This will yet be done by the power of truth, and a heaven-born Christianity. Lastly, if intellectual capacity is to be the standard of liberty, then every man who has less intellectual capacity than another, must become the slave of his superiour; and many of those Ziij OF THE NEGRO, who are now mristers and mistresses must become slaves, to some of those Africans whom they hold now in bondage. fe B. ARBITRARY DIVORCE NOT SANCTIONED UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. Facts prove that in our efforts to remove slavery, as in all other moral reforms, we should not only appeal to the interests of men, but chiefly and directly, to their consciences — show them that slaveholding is a sin which should not be practiced for a single day: and if knowingly and deliberately persisted in, must "exclude the soul from Heaven." 1 Cor. vi. 10. Also, facts prove that the church has an untold power in correcting public sentiment, in establishing the standard of right; and if the world shall be brought to regard any practice as wrong, as sinful, the church must treat it — discipline it as such. What she sanctions, lives. What she casts off— condemns by faithful, consistent, and persevering effort, dies away. Now, Avhen we call upon the master to let the op- pressed go free, and thus cease from sin: and when we call upon the church to refuse her sanction or tolerance of slavery, we are met with the reply, that "God in former times per- mitted men, and Christians too, to practice arbitrary divorce, concubinage, and slavery; and if slavery was not sin then, it is not sin now." Much of the teaching of the present age, allows the people to draw such conclusions. Many, even of those who are anti-slavery men, teach that God did tolerate, under the Mosaic economy, arbitrary divorce, concubinage, and slavery; yet, say they, he inculcated princi- ples which were designed, eventually, to wear out these sins. Thus Wayland, in his letters to Dr. Fuller, says: "we know full well that poligamy and divorce are wrong, that they violate the obligations established by God between the sexes, and are transgressions of his positive law; yet these sins ARBITRARY DIVORCE. 217 mexe not forbidden by Moses."^ He only permitted them, and modified some of their worst features. He, however, did not leave the subject here. He inculcated such principles as would, by appealing to their reason and conscience, gradu- ally abolish these abuses." Hence, he says, 'The Prophets rebuked their countrymen for their practice of these very wrongs permitted by Moses.' The reader is ready to say, the prophets would not be likely to succeed in removing these sins, if the Jew really believed, as Dr. Wayland, that these sins were really permitted by the greatest of all prophets, Moses. Barnes, in his late work on slavery, speaking concerning it under the laws of Moses, says, "it is not absolutely certain that it could have been entirely prohibited with ease, and we know that some things were tolerated under his system, which luere not approved,'''' p. 114. By these "some things," he means arbitrary divorce and poligamy, which he labors to prove were tolerated by Moses, and so was slavery, he con- cludes. Speaking of arbitrary divorce, he says; " the Mosaic ar- rangement tolerated divorce, it would seem, to any extent, and made the continuance of the marriage relation depend wholly on the pleasure of the husband," p. 167. Concern- ing concubinage he says; Moses aUowed an institution which he found already in existence, to be continued on account of the hardness of the hearts of the people. The same was manifestly true in regard to slavery." Aside from this con- cession, with a similar one in his New Testament argument, we consider his book a storehouse of valuable facts and truths. But this concession, wherever found, we consider a great practical defect in the arguments of those who call themselves anti-slavery men.t Whether the inference should be drawn * The italics and capitals are made by the author. The words are the words of Dr. Wayland. I William Hague, speaking of the concession of Dr. Wayland, "that the New Testament does not contain a direct precept prohibitory of slavery, but inculcates pT«c(/)/cs which will gradually wear it away,'* says: "After such a concession, we cannot conceive it to be within thr- scope of human intellect, to impart to the scriptural argument against slavery, an appearance of great strength. To ^ive it force and poignancy to direct it with quickening and commanding energy to the conscience of the slaveholder, is impossible."' I knov, that facts conlirm the truth ol tho remark. 218 ARBITRARY DIVORCE. or not, as matter of fact, ministers and people do still say, "if it was not sin then, it is not sin now. If it could be tolera- ted then, it can be now. The time has not come yet for action; we must tolerate it, and content ourselves with preach- ing y^rmcip/e.s And so the ministers in Kentucky for the last fifty years have been preactiing principles. But instead ol their principles banishing slavery, slavery is banishing them, and their principles too. And thus we beheve it will continue to be, until the friends of moral reform show that God's word never did, and does not now tolerate wrong" — "transgressions of God's positive law." If we can show that arbitrary divorce and poligamy were not sanctioned, we shall greatly weaken the argument that slavery was tolerated or sanctioned. ARBITRARY DIVORCE. This, as we have seen, is supposed to have been allowed under the Mosaic economy. This inference is drawn from our present version of Deut. xxiv. 1-4; and from a supposi- tion that Christ taught that divorce, for other causes than that of adultery, was allowed or permitted by Moses. From Deut. xxiv. I to 4 inclusive, it is first inferred, that a permis- sion was given to the husband to put away his wife, if some quarrel had been kicked up, or some defect found in the person, or disposition of the wife: and second, that a permis- sion was granted to the woman to go and marry another man , which last permission, say they, might not be given, unless the first marriage tie was recognized as being lawfully and rightfully dissolved by the divorce. Now let us read the text as it stands in the original Hebrew, — as it was written by Moses. "If a man shall select a wife, and marry her, (or go in to her, as is the original,) and it comes to pass that no favor to her is found in his eyes, because in her is found some mat- ter of ofiensiveness; and he gives to her (or shall give to her; not ^ht him give to her' *) a writing of divorcement and places it in her hands, and sends her from his house, and she goes forth from his house, and goes and becomes one to another man, (or a wife,) and her latter husband hate her, and gives to her a writing of divorcement, and puts it into her hands, * Prfctor kal, may not be used in an innperative sense, only when it is preceded by an imperative form, [see Stewart's Hebrew Grammar § ,'''(3 (F) ] which is not the casein ths above connection. ARBITRAKY DIVORCE. 2iy und slie is sent troni his house; or if the latter husband shall die, which took her to wife, her first husband, which sent her away, shall not take her again to wife, after that she is defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." Here the reader will observe, there is no permission given to the husband to put away his wife. Nor is there a permission given to the wife to go and marry another man, even if the husband has put her away; but simply a declaration of what shall be the consequences, if the husband, from the hardness of his heart does do so. L He shall not have the privilege of living with her again, if she does marry a second man. 2, He shall not cause the land to sin; i. e. practice in the land the double sin of having occasioned the woman to be- come an adulteress, (see Mark x. 12,) and then living with one who is an adulteress, and thereby "defiled." * That the woman became "defiled" by marrying the second man, when she was really yet the wife of the first, (the divorce being con- sidered by Moses as not a justification to either of the parties) is clear: for if the wife was not guilty of any form of forni- cstion,t and the husband might, by the law of Moses, divorce her for some defect of body, or mind, or mere disaff*ection of the husband, and if this could dissolve the marriage relation so that either party, without sin, might go and marry again, then the woman could not become defiled by so doing. If the divorce was recognized by Moses as lawful, and as put- * Since the above was written, I have received a private letter from Professor Stowe, in which, so far as we can understand each other by let- ter, lie approves the above exposition: and thinking it no wrong to him, and that his known ability in exposition of original Hebrew, may give weiglit to what I think is Gods truth, I append his words: ''Your idea of the text in Deut. xxiv. 1-4 is the correct one. In the language of the critics, the fust three verses are the protasis and the fourth is the apodasis, just as you suppose. Such is the decision of Rosenmuler, the most learned of commentators, and so the passage is translated by De Wette, the most accurate and skillful of translators As you correctly observe, the words in the first three verses are indicative praeter, and not to be translated in the imperative sense."' J The Greek word ponicia which in Math. v. 32, and xix. 9, is ren- dered fornication, is a term of '-general import, and may be used to des- ignate all illicit sexual connexion, like our word lewdness or liceiitious- ness, and may include adultery;" as seen in Cor. v. 1. "fW ARBITRALY DIVOKCE. ting them back where tliey were before they were lirst mar- ried, then marrying the second husband could no more defile her than marrying the first. Or, if the divorce had been re- garded as lawful and putting the woman in the condition of a widow (as when Ruth married Boaz) then she could not have been defiled by her second marriage. But we are told in the text that she was defiled^ which fact proves that she was really and truly the wife of the first husband when she mar- ried the second — that the divorce was not regarded by Moses as dissolving the marriage relation any more then than now: and being really the wife of the former husband when she married the second, she committed adultery, (Mark x. 12; Math. V. 32,) and thus became defiled. How will you, reader, account for the defilement in any other way? Do you say the uncleanness or offensiveness spoken of in the first verse was sexual uncleanness? — Some form of fornication? Then we answer, 1. The Hebrew word used to designate it, is not that which is generally used to designate fornication or adultery. 2. If it was, then you yield the point of controversy: for then the condition of divorce was the same, under the Mosaic dispensation, as under the Christian. But your claim is that Moses allowed divorce for things for which it is not allowed, under the Christian dispensation; and that it would be sinful to allow divorces lor such causes now. And again, as the advocate of divorce, you claim that this woman whom you now say was an open and acknowledged fornicator, ha(i by the same statute, a permission equal to that of the husband to go and marry another man. — That is, she might be put away by one husband, for the crime of fornica- tion, and then, notwithstanding the existence of the same fault, for which she is divorced from one, she has a permit to go and marry another. We want to know how much better oft', would the latter husband be, than the former? And would crime on the part of the woman, be destroyed by repetition? All of these inconsistencies show that wrong inferences have been drawn from our present version of the passage in Deut. xxiv. 1-4; and that the only true and consistent way of ex- plaining the passage is, that the woman was wronglly put out of the house of the hard-hearted husband, and that the divorce Was to him no acquittal from guilt, nor a dissolution of the marriage relation to her; and being yet truly the wife of the first hiisbaiid, she, by marrying a second, committed adultery. ARBITRARY DIVORCK. 2ti2 and thereby became defiled; and as such defilement might not be perpetuated or tolerated in the land, the law forbade the first husband to take her again, however great might be his desire to do so. This text then contains no permission to the husband to practice arbitrary divorce. On his part it was always sinful. This position is clear, from our Saviour's teaching to the Pharisees as recorded in Math. v. 32; xix. 3-9; Mark x. 8-12. Here he shows, 1. Marriage is an institution of God, founded upon nature (see Math. xix. 4, 5.) "From creation they were made male and female that they might become one flesh." This relation being founded upon nature, and not merely a creature of positive law, "let no man," not even Moses himself, "put asunder," save for that act which breaks the marriage cove- nant, by making the husband or wite on with another man or woman. — See 1 Cor. vi. 16. This being true, if theoflfence spoken of inDeut. xxiv. 1, was sexual uncleanness, illicit inter- course, then divorce under the law of Moses, was for the same cause, as under the christian dispensation. If the unclean- ness or offensiveness spoken of, was only some defect of body or mind, in the eye of the husband, then it was unjustifi- able in him to do so, for marriage being founded upon nature, the positive precepts of Moses, nor of any other man, could ever make a natural wrong, right. "Moses could not make a law directly opposite to the law of God." — (Cruden.) And hence, if a divorce was permitted, it was for some other cause, such as the protection of the wife and prevention of defilement in the land; and not that it was lawful or right in the husband to violate a natural relation to gratify some whim or prejudice of his. 3. Our Saviour tells us, if a man does put away his wife for any other cause than that of fornication, and marries another, he committeth adultery. (Marh x. 11.) And if the •woman shall go and marry another husband, she likewise commits adultery. Mark x. 12. Then, as adultery is a viola- tion of a natural relation, it never could have been made right by a positive precept. Then the passage in Dent. xxiv. 1, 2, could never have been designed to be a permission to either the husband of wife, to go and marry again, whilst each were living — no form of fornication having been committed. 3. Our Saviour says, this divorce "was suffered" (just as drunkenness was suffered, without any approbation from God 222 ARBITRARY DIVORCE. or Moses) "because of the hardness of your hearts.'' iVlatli. xix. 8. Here notice, the Saviour does not admit the declara- tion of the Pharisees, that "Moses commanded to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away," but he simply says Moses suffered you to do so, (just as God suffers men to get drunk now) because of the hardness of your hearts;''^ by these words, charging home on them criminality for doing so. Divorce for any cause, save that of the various forms of fornication, always was, as we believe, wrong; and never sanctioned any more by the laws of Moses, than by the Chris- tian, or New 'J'estament precepts. Some will suppose that the institution originated with Moses, and that he, at least prescribed the manner in which men should put away their wives, provided they, in the hard- ness of their hearts, should determine to do so. To this we reply: 1. From Lev. xxi. 14; — "The high-priest shall not take a divorced woman;" and from Lev. xxii. 13; Numbers xxx. 9, it appears that the custom was already in existence, and bad been practised, perhaps for ages previous to the giving of this statute. And the passage here no more prescribes, as a statute, the manner in which a divorce shall be given, than the passage in Exod. xxii. 2, 3, prescribes the manner in which men should steal, provided they would steal. All that the law did in the latter case, was to declare that "if a thief should steal by breaking into a house, by day, or by night, certain consequences should follow: and all that the law does in this statute, as found in Deut. xxiv. 1 — 4, is to declare, that if a man shall divorce his wife, then certain consequences shall follow, and certain requirements shall be made. 2. If the passage be considered as fixing at least the manner in which men should put away their wives, provided they would do it, this requirement was no permission or tolerance to the husband in putting away the wife: but, (1.) It would operate as a restraint upon divorce, by requir* ing a process tedious, and attended with trouble and expense. A lapse of time would thus be requisite, in which the husband might reflect and repent. (2.) It would stay the progress of adultery in the land. — The husband could not momentrily drive one wife from his house — go any marry another, and then, when his anger was over, if she had married a second husband, he could not live again with h'er husband— go to another man, and marry him ARBITRARY DIVORCE. 223 upon a mere declaration, that she was divorced. A writing of divorcement was necessary. 3. By this means, greater security would be given to the innocent wife of a cruel, and hard hearted husband; — because, b.y requiring a bill of divorcement to be given to her, she would be freed from his authority or power; and thus her person and property would be preserved from the hard hearted wretch. The passage then, instead of being a permission to the husband to gratify his "hardness of heart," would be a civil enactment, by which the wife might be protected from violence. Many think this was the chief object of the civil ■enactment; just as the civil law may now, for the safety of the wife, grant a divorce from a cruel man. Yet, this require- ment from the husband, and permission to the wife, as an act of the civil government, would ncJt for a moment sanction the unkind treatment or the driving away, by the hard hearted husband. Plausible as is this view, we like the former best. With either view, the passage under consideration did not justify any man in practising arbitrary divorce. POLYGAMY. Poligamy also, is supposed to have been tolerated by God among the Patriarchs, and under the Mosaic economy. This is inferred, 1. From God's silence ("so far as the record goes") in res- pect to the sin, among the Patriarchs — his communion with them, and blessing upon them. In reference to all these, we simply remark that Abraham and Isaac lied to Abimalech (Gen. 20: 2. 26: 7). Jacob practiced deception, falsehood, and extortion (Gen. 27: 19. 25: 27-34); yet God, "so far as the record goes", said nothing about these sins — communed with, and blessed each, and all of them. The argument is therefore, just as good for lying, fraud, and extortion, as for poligamy. 2. Certain passages of Scripture are adduced to prove that poligamy was tolerated by Moses; as Exod. 21: 7-10. "If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please not her master, ivho hath betrothed her to himself'' (not married yet, only betrothed) "then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he hath betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal v.'ith her after the manner of daughters. If 224 POLYGAMY^ he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." This passage, as we conceive, has no reference whatever to the question of polyg- amy. It was a law made simply for the protection of the rights of any poor female, whose father had sold her services until she was of age: when, as the context shows (for she was betrothed to him) she was to be married to the man who bought her, or to his son. "Her purchase as a maid-servant,'* says Bush in his comment, "was her espousal as a wife." And he then adds a quotation from Jarchi: "He is bound to espouse her to be his wife, for the money of her purchase is the money of her espousal." This is established by the text; for in it the purchaser is said to have betrothed her to himself. If when she attained to the age for marriage, the purchaser failed to carry out his pledge of betrothal, he should not have the liberty to sell her away to a stange nation where her reli- gious privileges would be cut off; nor had he the privilege to sell her to any other man of his own nation, for if he failed to marry her, then he was to "let her be redeemed"; or as it is in the original, "cause her to be redeemed." Now with this view, the law is a humane one, reflecting honor upon God its author, who loves his poor. But suppose we construe it as the advocates of polygamy do, and say the poor girl had been used for a while by the master as a wife (in the sense of sexual intercourse, as they construe the phrase "duty of marriage,") and then she is redeemed or sent back to her poor father, a poor outcast upon the world, robbed of her character — of that in a virgin which would make her desira- ble as a companion to another — would this be consistent with the merciful character of God, and that vigilance which he has ever manifested for the protection and happiness of his poor? Would he enact laws, frame institutions which should thus sacrifice the happiness and welfare of poor innocent females to the whims and lusts of men? Such constructions though often innocently made, are, as we believe, perversions, and not interpretations of God's Holy word. Nor may it be inferred that this purchaser had a son and therefore a wife at the time he betrothed the girl. For first, the inference is equally plausible that if he had a son, lie had not at that time a wife, but wanted one. It is mere assertion to say he had. And second, as the law was made for all Jews it is fair — in accordance with frequent Bible usage, to infer that the word *he," represents a Jew — any Jew; who, as a single man. i. POLYGAMYo 225 should see a young female whom he should like to have for a wife, when she should be marriageable. And the word "he" used in the ninth verse refers to another Jew, who should buy- one for his son. But if the word he represents the same person in the several verses, still it does by no means follow that he had two wives at the same time. And so in the tenth verse: the word "he" may appropriately represent any Jew who should betroth a female, and then disappoint her in not marrying her. He was bound to find her food and raiment, and a home. And if the word "he" refers to the son, as Barnes supposes, then if when he comes to act for himself if he refuses to marry the one betrothed to him by his father, and takes another^ * or different person to be his wife, then the father was still bound to treat her "after the manner of daughtets" — to give her food, raiment, and a home. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free with- out money: that is, in none of the above cases shall the pur- chaser have any claim on her because of the purchase money- paid. This would increase the facilities of her redemption, or of her marriage, as no dowry would have to be paid. That the Hebrew word avonah, a form of which is here rendered duty of marriage, means here, a home, a dwellidg place, is clear; for, as Mr. Barnes admits, it is derived from a verb (avoon) which means to rest, to dwell; and the noun means a living together, cohabitation. But in what sense are we to understand cohabitation? We answer as the con- text evidently demands (and is better authority than Gesenius) as having a home in the same house — "after the manner of daughters", arid not sexual intercourse. If the case be that of a father who had bought a young female for his son, and the son does not marry her, but marries another, then the father was to give her food, clothing, and a home — a support, and privilege to dwell in his house. If the case be that of one who was a single man, having no home or family, and he failed to marry the maid, then he should cause her to be redeemed. If you insist that it was the son that had to take care of her, then we answer it does not affect the argument; for he is bound only to give her food raiment, and a home — * There is no word in the original which may be translated '-'wife.' This is supplied or inserted by our translators, as is indicated by being Written in Italics. And therefore, nothin:^ can be drawn from the Word wife, to show that the man had two wives at the same time. C2 n6 POLYGAMY a place to dwell in; and not sexual intercourse. If the latter were his privilege, then so soon as he should be displeased with her, she might be cast out a poor out cast, without home or character; and instead of this being a humane law, it would be the vilest oppression, that sacrifices the character and hap- piness of a poor female, to the whims and lust of a vile man. The other view suits the context, and reflects glory upon God in providing for his poor. The next passage relied upon in defence of polygamy, is Deut. 21: 15, 16. "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated and they have borne him children, both the beloved and hated; and if the first-born son be her's that was hated: then it shall be when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which indeed is the first-born." From this passage it is inferred by some that the father had two wives at the same time, and the fact that the law regulates the rights of both sets of children, with- out saying any thing, in this place, about the wrong of polyg- amy, is evidence that it was designed to be tolerated, and not wrong in the father to practice it. We remark: 1. There is no positive evidence but that one wife was dead, and after her death another one more loved was taken. Or, that the first one because of the hardness of the heart of the husband, had been divorced, and another taken. And in case a man should do thus wrong, the right of promogeni- ture should not be taken away from the first-born. 2. If it were even admitted that the father had done wrong, and violated the seventh commandment, the fact that a law was made guarding the right of the first-born against the whim of a partial father, is no evidence that his polygamy was sanc- tioned. The law in our own land, provides that in case a man shall marry a woman — have by her children, and then because he shall like some other won^in better, and have children by her— the law provides that the children of the first wife, shall be the lawful heirs of his property. And the fact that the law guards the rights of the first-born, without saying any thing about the father's polygamy, is no evidence that it was designed to sanction, or even tolerate his polygamy. Especially will this position seem forcible when we remember that there was a previous law (Exod. 22: 29,) which required the first-born son to be consecrated to the Lord. To him was to go the family nam.o, authority, and a double portion of J. POLYGAMY. 227 goods. — Deut. 21: 17. To guard tliirf right, was the above law instituted, saying nothing about polygamy, — whether it was sin, or something that might be allowed. The protection of the rights of the first-born son, was the object, The last passage which it is necessary to notice, is that recorded in Deut. 25: 5-10. "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her." It is said by the advocates of polygamy, "This instance at least shows, that though a man had a wife of his own, there were circum- stances in which it was proper for him to cohabit with one who had been the wife of another." Here it is assumed that the younger brother who was required to marry the widow of the elder and departed brother, was himself a married man. "We remark, 1. This is mere assumption. — Of its truthfulness there is no proof. 2. The context shows, as we believe, that the requirement was made only of single brothers. The wording of the text implies that it was required only of those dwelling together — "If brethren dwell together." By the law of primogeniture the eldest son was made heir of the patrimony — the father's estate. The other brothers not yet married, would be dwelling yet at the homestead. The first-born dying, the next brother was required to take his wife, and marry her. Dr. Patrick in his comment on the phrase, "If brethren dwell together," and speaking of the teaching of the Jewish commentators on this subject, says: "They might likewise have concluded fro 11 this phrase, that such of the brethren as had wives already, were not bound to take her to wife, but only he that was unmarried; who might be supposed to be meant by 'him that dwelleth together with his brother,' and was not yet gone to a house of his own." This view is strengthened by parallel passages from the Bible. When Er the husband of Tamar was slain, and Onan also, Judah said to Tamar : — ♦'Remain a widow at thy father's house until Selah" (the younger brother of Er) "be grown." She was to wait for the single brother, yet dwelling in the house. Naomi said to the widowed wives of her sons: "If I should have an husband to-night, and should also bear sons, would ye tarry for them till they be grown?" — Implying that that was the custom sa 230 POLYGAMY. 1. It would be as vexatious to a wife to have any other woman to be a concubine, as a sister. The reason assigned for construing the text as it now stands in our English version, is that a sister would vex the first wife more than any other woman: and family quarrels is the thing objected to. But a sister would be no more vexing than any other woman. Rachel was not more vexatious to Leah, than Hagar to Sarah. Indeed, all with whom I have ever conversed on the subject concur that a sister would be less vexatious than any other woman. 2. If the text be construed as simply forbidding the taking of one sister to another during her life-time, it is as plain a prohibition of Patriarchal polygamy, the polygamy defended, as a prohibition not to take one wife to another: for Jacob not only took one wife to another, but took one sister to another in her life-time, which thmg in this chapter is said to be "an abomination." The truth is, polygamy was not sanctioned to the Jews; and "existed only in violation of the law, and at the risk of its excinding penalty." Do you again say, some good men did practice it? W^ answer, as we have before shown, that good men of that age done many other abominations, yet God communed with them, and blessed them. And (we think it is) Dr. Woods of Andover, who tells us of a presbytery of pious ministers and elders who, some thirty or forty years ago, assembled one afternoon, and found themselves so drunk that they were incapacitated for transacting business, and adjourned until next morning, when they would probably be sober. Yet none of us doubt but that these men, as a body, were good men; and that God often communed with them and blessed them, Yet this latter fact, did not change the moral character of their drunkenness — did not prevent it from being sin. So with polygamy. > Mb 28 2 ANTI-SLAVERY MANUAL, An Examiuation, in the Light of the Bible, and of Facts, into the 3Ioral and Social Wrongs of American Slavery, with a Remedy for the Evil, JOHIV G. FEE, A MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL. '' Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil ; That put darkness for light, and light for darkness. — Isaiah 5 : 20. I " It is a debt we ovi-e to the purity of our Religion, to show that it is at variance with the lav/ that warrants Slavery."' — Patrick Henry. MAYSVILLE, KY.: PRINTED AT THK HERALD OFFICE, 1848. trr >p--^ ^^.* .<^^^\ o"^ •I'f' "^ DOBBS BROS. LiailAIIY BIMDINO j.o-n*.. 3Cl 7r ,:•»- ''^ "*-* ^rr,-' .<^<•' 'aV v°-nj.. ST. AUGUSTINE ^ •" FLA. • 32084 "