The Anti-Slavery Examiner
Chapter 2 : But after all, it may be said, our fathers were certainly mistaken, for the Bible sancti

But after all, it may be said, our fathers were certainly mistaken, for the Bible sanctions Slavery, and that is the highest authority. Now the Bible is my ultimate appeal in all matters of faith and practice, and it is to _this test_ I am anxious to bring the subject at issue between us.

Let us then begin with Adam and examine the charter of privileges which was given to him. "Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." In the eighth Psalm we have a still fuller description of this charter which through Adam was given to all mankind. "Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet. All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatsoever pa.s.seth through the paths of the seas." And after the flood when this charter of human rights was renewed, we find _no additional_ power vested in man. "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered." In this charter, although the different kinds of _irrational_ beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion over _all of them_ is granted, yet _man_ is _never_ vested with this dominion _over his fellow man;_ he was never told that any of the human species were put _under his feet;_ it was only _all things_, and man, who was created in the image of his Maker, _never_ can properly be termed a _thing_, though the laws of Slave States do call him "a chattel personal;" _Man_ then, I a.s.sert _never_ was put _under the feet of man_, by that first charter of human rights which was given by G.o.d, to the Fathers of the Antediluvian and Postdiluvian worlds, therefore this doctrine of equality is based on the Bible.

But it may be argued, that in the very chapter of Genesis from which I have last quoted, will be found the curse p.r.o.nounced upon Canaan, by which his posterity was consigned to servitude under his brothers Shem and j.a.pheth. I know this prophecy was uttered, and was most fearfully and wonderfully fulfilled, through the immediate descendants of Canaan, _i.e._ the Canaanites, and I do not know but it has been through all the children of Ham, but I do know that prophecy does _not_ tell us what _ought to be_, but what actually does take place, ages after it has been delivered, and that if we justify America for enslaving the children of Africa, we must also justify Egypt for reducing the children of Israel to bondage, for the latter was foretold as explicitly as the former. I am well aware that prophecy has often been urged as an excuse for Slavery, but be not deceived, the fulfillment of prophecy will _not cover one sin_ in the awful day of account. Hear what our Saviour says on this subject; "it must needs be that offences come, but _woe unto that man through whom they come_"--Witness some fulfillment of this declaration in the tremendous destruction of Jerusalem, occasioned by that most nefarious of all crimes the crucifixion of the Son of G.o.d. Did the fact of that event having been foretold, exculpate the Jews from sin in perpetrating it; No--for hear what the Apostle Peter says to them on this subject, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of G.o.d, _ye_ have taken, and by _wicked_ hands have crucified and slain." Other striking instances might be adduced, but these will suffice.

But it has been urged that the patriarchs held slaves, and therefore, slavery is right. Do you really believe that patriarchal servitude was like American slavery? Can you believe it? If so, read the history of these primitive fathers of the church and be undeceived. Look at Abraham, though so great a man, going to the herd himself and fetching a calf from thence and serving it up with his own hands, for the entertainment of his guests. Look at Sarah, that princess as her name signifies, baking cakes upon the hearth. If the servants they had were like Southern slaves, would they have performed such comparatively menial offices for themselves? Hear too the plaintive lamentation of Abraham when he feared he should have no son to bear his name down to posterity. "Behold thou hast given me no seed, &c., one born in my house _is mine_ heir." From this it appears that one of his _servants_ was to inherit his immense estate. Is this like Southern slavery? I leave it to your own good sense and candor to decide. Besides, such was the footing upon which Abraham was with _his_ servants, that he trusted them with arms. Are slaveholders willing to put swords and pistols into the hands of their slaves? He was as a father among his servants; what are planters and masters generally among theirs? When the inst.i.tution of circ.u.mcision was established, Abraham was commanded thus; "He that is eight days old shall be circ.u.mcised among you, _every_ man-child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed." And to render this command with regard to his _servants_ still more impressive it is repeated in the very next verse; and herein we may perceive the great care which was taken by G.o.d to guard the _rights of servants_ even under this "dark dispensation." What too was the testimony given to the faithfulness of this eminent patriarch. "For I know him that he will command his children and his _household_ after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment." Now my dear friends many of you believe that circ.u.mcision has been superseded by baptism in the Church; _Are you_ careful to have _all_ that are born in your house or bought with money of any stranger, baptized? Are _you_ as faithful as Abraham to command _your household to keep the way of the Lord?_ I leave it to your own consciences to decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like American Slavery?

But I shall be told, G.o.d sanctioned Slavery, yea commanded Slavery under the Jewish Dispensation. Let us examine this subject calmly and prayerfully. I admit that a species of _servitude_ was permitted to the Jews, but in studying the subject I have been struck with wonder and admiration at perceiving how carefully the servant was guarded from violence, injustice and wrong. I will first inform you how these servants became servants, for I think this a very important part of our subject. From consulting Horne, Calmet and the Bible, I find there were six different ways by which the Hebrews became servants legally.

1. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself, i.e. his services, for six years, in which case _he_ received the purchase money _himself_. Lev. xxv, 39.

2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e. his _daughters_, in which circ.u.mstance it was understood the daughter was to be the wife or daughter-in-law of the man who bought her, and the _father_ received the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were in the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives_, _not_ as slaves. Ex.

xxi, 7.

3. Insolvent debtors might be delivered to their creditors as servants.

2 Kings iv, 1.

4. Thieves not able to make rest.i.tution for their thefts, were sold for the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.

5. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.

6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be redeemed by one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; and he who redeemed him, was _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred, and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.

Before going into an examination of the laws by which these servants were protected, I would just ask whether American slaves have become slaves in any of the ways in which the Hebrews became servants. Did they sell themselves into slavery and receive the purchase money into their own hands? No! Did they become insolvent, and by their own imprudence subject themselves to be sold as slaves? No! Did they steal the property of another, and were they sold to make rest.i.tution for their crimes? No!

Did their present masters, as an act of kindness, redeem them from some heathen tyrant to whom _they had sold themselves_ in the dark hour of adversity? No! Were they born in slavery? No! No! not according to _Jewish Law_, for the servants who were born in servitude among them, were born of parents who had _sold themselves_ for six years: Ex. xxi, 4. Were the female slaves of the South sold by their fathers? How shall I answer this question? Thousands and tens of thousands never were, _their_ fathers _never_ have received the poor compensation of silver or gold for the tears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless bondage of _their_ daughters. They labor day by day, and year by year, side by side, in the same field, if haply their daughters are permitted to remain on the same plantation with them, instead of being as they often are, separated from their parents and sold into distant states, never again to meet on earth. But do the _fathers of the South ever sell their daughters?_ My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the awful affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell their daughters, _not_ as Jewish parents did, to be the wives and daughters-in-law of the man who buys them, but to be the abject slaves of petty tyrants and irresponsible masters. Is it not so, my friends? I leave it to your own candor to corroborate my a.s.sertion. Southern slaves then have _not_ become slaves in any of the six different ways in which Hebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters _cannot_ according to _Jewish law_ substantiate their claim to the men, women, or children they now hold in bondage.

But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced to servitude; it was this, he might he _stolen_ and afterwards sold as a slave, as was Joseph. To guard most effectually against this dreadful crime of manstealing, G.o.d enacted this severe law. "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death[A]." As I have tried American Slavery by _legal_ Hebrew servitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that Jewish law cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by _illegal_ Hebrew bondage. Have the Southern slaves then been stolen? If they did not sell themselves into bondage; if they were not sold as insolvent debtors or as thieves; if they were not redeemed from a heathen master to whom they had sold themselves; if they were not born in servitude according to Hebrew law; and if the females were not sold by their fathers as wives and daughters-in-law to those who purchased them; then what shall we say of them? what can we say of them? but that according _to Hebrew Law they have been stolen_.

[Footnote A: And again, "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then _that thief shall die_, and thou shalt put away evil from among you." Deut. xxiv, 7.]

But I shall be told that the Jews had other servants who were absolute slaves. Let us look a little into this also. They had other servants who were procured in two different ways.

1. Captives taken in war were reduced to bondage instead of being killed; but we are not told that their children were enslaved. Deut. xx, 14.

2. Bondmen and bondmaids might be bought from the heathen round about them; these were left by fathers to their children after them, but it does not appear that the _children_ of these servants ever were reduced to servitude. Lev. xxv, 44.

I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of Hebrew masters over their _heathen_ slaves. Were the southern slaves taken captive in war? No! Were they bought from the heathen? No! for surely, no one will _now_ vindicate the slave-trade so far as to a.s.sert that slaves were bought from the heathen who were obtained by that system of piracy. The only excuse for holding southern slaves is that they were born in slavery, but we have seen that they were _not_ born in servitude as Jewish servants were, and that the children of heathen slaves were not legally subjected to bondage even under the Mosaic Law. How then have the slaves of the South been obtained?

I will next proceed to an examination of those laws which were enacted in order to protect the Hebrew and the Heathen servant; for I wish you to understand that _both_ are protected by Him, of whom it is said "his mercies are over all his works." I will first speak of those which secured the rights of Hebrew servants. This code was headed thus:

1. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy G.o.d.

2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. xx, 2[A].

[Footnote A: And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him _liberally_ out of thy flock and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press: of that wherewith the Lord thy G.o.d hath blessed thee, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv, 13, 14.]

3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4. If his master have given him a wife and she have borne him sons and daughters, the wife and her children shall be his master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5. If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto the Judges, and he shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him _forever_. Ex. xxi, 3-6.

6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go _free_ for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his man servant's tooth or his maid servant's tooth, he shall let him go _free_ for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.

7. On the Sabbath rest was secured to servants by the fourth commandment. Ex. xx, 10.

8. Servants were permitted to unite with their masters three times in every year in celebrating the Pa.s.sover, the feast of Pentecost, and the feast of Tabernacles; every male throughout the land was to appear before the Lord at Jerusalem with a gift; here the bond and the free stood on common ground. Deut. xvi.

9. If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Ex. xxi, 20, 21.

From these laws we learn that Hebrew men servants were bound to serve their masters _only six_ years, unless their attachment to their employers, their wives and children, should induce them to wish to remain in servitude, in which case, in order to prevent the possibility of deception on the part of the master, the servant was first taken before the magistrate, where he openly declared his intention of continuing in his master's service, (probably a public register was kept of such) he was then conducted to the door of the house, (in warm climates doors are thrown open,) and _there_ his ear was _publicly_ bored, and by submitting to this operation he testified his willingness to serve him _forever_, i.e. during his life, for Jewish Rabbins who must have understood Jewish _slavery_, (as it is called,) "affirm that servants were set free at the death of their masters and did _not_ descend to their heirs:" or that he was to serve him until the year of Jubilee, when _all_ servants were set at liberty. To protect servants from violence, it was ordained that if a master struck out the tooth or destroyed the eye of a servant, that servant immediately became _free_, for such an act of violence evidently showed he was unfit to possess the power of a master, and therefore that power was taken from him. All servants enjoyed the rest of the Sabbath and partook of the privileges and festivities of the three great Jewish Feasts; and if a servant died under the infliction of chastis.e.m.e.nt, his master was surely to be punished. As a tooth for a tooth and life for life was the Jewish law, of course he was punished with death. I know that great stress has been laid upon the following verse: "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money."

Slaveholders, and the apologists of slavery, have eagerly seized upon this little pa.s.sage of scripture, and held it up as the masters' Magna Charta, by which they were licensed by G.o.d himself to commit the greatest outrages upon the defenceless victims of their oppression. But, my friends, was it designed to be so? If our Heavenly Father would protect by law the eye and the tooth of a Hebrew servant, can we for a moment believe that he would abandon that same servant to the brutal rape of a master who would destroy even life itself. Do we not rather see in this, the _only_ law which protected masters, and was it not right that in case of the death of a servant, one or two days after chastis.e.m.e.nt was inflicted, to which other circ.u.mstances might have contributed, that the master should be protected when, in all probability, he never intended to produce so fatal a result? But the phrase "he is his money" has been adduced to show that Hebrew servants were regarded as mere _things_, "chattels personal;" if so, why were so many laws made to _secure their rights as men_, and to ensure their rising into equality and freedom? If they were mere _things_, why were they regarded as responsible beings, and one law made for them as well as for their masters? But I pa.s.s on now to the consideration of how the _female_ Jewish servants were protected by _law_.

1. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto another nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out _free_ without money.

On these laws I will give you Calmet's remarks; "A father could not sell his daughter as a slave, according to the Rabbins, until she was at the age of p.u.b.erty, and unless he were reduced to the utmost indigence.

Besides, when a master bought an Israelitish girl, it was _always_ with the presumption that he would take her to wife." Hence Moses adds, "if she please not her master, and he does not think fit to marry her, he shall set her at liberty," or according to the Hebrew, "he shall let her be redeemed." "To sell her to another nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her;" as to the engagement implied, at least of taking her to wife. "If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters, i.e. he shall take care that his son uses her as his wife, that he does not despise or maltreat her. If he make his son marry another wife, he shall give her her dowry, her clothes and compensation for her virginity; if he does none of these three, she shall _go out free_ without money."

Thus were the _rights of female servants carefully secured by law_ under the Jewish Dispensation; and now I would ask, are the rights of female slaves at the South thus secured? Are _they_ sold only as wives and daughters-in-law, and when not treated as such, are they allowed to _go out free_? No! They have _all_ not only been illegally obtained as servants according to Hebrew law, but they are also illegally _held_ in bondage. Masters at the South and West have all forfeited their claims, (_if they ever had any_,) to their female slaves.

We come now to examine the case of those servants who were "of the heathen round about;" Were _they_ left entirely unprotected by law?

Horne in speaking of the law, "Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy G.o.d," remarks, "this law Lev. xxv, 43; it is true speaks expressly of slaves who were of Hebrew descent; but as _alien born_ slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew Church by circ.u.mcision, _there is no doubt_ but that it applied to _all_ slaves;" if so, then we may reasonably suppose that the other protective laws extended to them also; and that the only difference between Hebrew and Heathen servants lay in this, that the former served but six years unless they chose to remain longer; and were always freed at the death of their masters; whereas the latter served until the year of Jubilee, though that might include a period of forty-nine years,--and were left from father to son.

There are however two other laws which I have not yet noticed. The one effectually prevented _all involuntary_ servitude, and the other completely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were equally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew.

1. "Thou shall _not_ deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best: thou shall _not_ oppress him." Deut. x.x.xiii; 15, 16.

2. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim _Liberty_ throughout _all_ the land, unto _all_ the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you." Deut. xxv, 10.

Here, then, we see that by this first law, the _door of Freedom was opened wide to every servant who_ had any cause whatever for complaint; if he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him, and _no man_ had a right to deliver him back to him again, and not only so, but the absconded servant was to _choose_ where he should live, and no Jew was permitted to oppress him. He left his master just as our Northern servants leave us; we have no power to compel them to remain with us, and no man has any right to oppress them; they go and dwell in that place where it chooseth them, and live just where they like. Is it so at the South? Is the poor runaway slave protected _by law_ from the violence of that master whose oppression and cruelty has driven him from his plantation or his house? No! no! Even the free states of the North are compelled to deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped from his master into them. By _human_ law, under the _Christian Dispensation_, in the _nineteenth century_ we are commanded to do, what _G.o.d_ more than _three thousand_ years ago, under the _Mosaic Dispensation_, _positively commanded_ the Jews _not_ to do. In the wide domain even of our free states, there is not _one_ city of refuge for the poor runaway fugitive; not one spot upon which he can stand and say, I am a free man--I am protected in my rights as a _man_, by the strong arm of the law; no! _not one_. How long the North will thus shake hands with the South in sin, I know not. How long she will stand by like the persecutor Saul, _consenting_ unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the raiment of them that slew him, I know not; but one thing I do know, the _guilt of the North_ is increasing in a tremendous ratio as light is pouring in upon her on the subject and the sin of slavery. As the sun of righteousness climbs higher and higher in the moral heavens, she will stand still more and more abashed as the query is thundered down into her ear, "_Who_ hath required _this_ at thy hand?" It will be found _no_ excuse then that the Const.i.tution of our country required that _persons bound to service_ escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no more excuse than was the reason which Adam a.s.signed for eating the forbidden fruit. _He was condemned and punished because_ he hearkened to the voice of _his wife_, rather than to the command of his Maker; and _we_ will a.s.suredly be condemned and punished for obeying _Man_ rather than _G.o.d_, if we do not speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Yea, are we not receiving chastis.e.m.e.nt even _now_?

But by the second of these laws a still more astonis.h.i.+ng fact is disclosed. If the first effectually prevented _all involuntary servitude_, the last absolutely forbade even _voluntary servitude being perpetual_. On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the Jubilee trumpet was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and _Liberty_ was proclaimed to _all_ the inhabitants thereof. I will not say that the servants' _chains_ fell off and their _manacles_ were burst, for there is no evidence that Jewish servants _ever_ felt the weight of iron chains, and collars, and handcuffs; but I do say that even the man who had voluntarily sold himself and the _heathen_ who had been sold to a Hebrew master, were set free, the one as well as the other. This law was evidently designed to prevent the oppression of the poor, and the possibility of such a thing as _perpetual servitude_ existing among them.

Where, then, I would ask, is the warrant, the justification, or the palliation of American Slavery from Hebrew servitude? How many of the southern slaves would now be in bondage according to the laws of Moses; Not one. You may observe that I have carefully avoided using the term _slavery_ when speaking of Jewish servitude; and simply for this reason, that _no such thing_ existed among that people; the word translated servant does _not_ mean _slave_, it is the same that is applied to Abraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets generally. _Slavery_ then _never_ existed under the Jewish Dispensation at all, and I cannot but regard it as an aspersion on the character of Him who is "glorious in Holiness" for any one to a.s.sert that "_G.o.d sanctioned, yea commanded slavery_ under the old dispensation." I would fain lift my feeble voice to vindicate Jehovah's character from so foul a slander. If slaveholders are determined to hold slaves as long as they can, let them not dare to say that the G.o.d of mercy and of truth _ever_ sanctioned such a system of cruelty and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him.

We have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard to servants was designed to _protect them_ as _men and women_, to secure to them their _rights_ as _human beings_, to guard them from oppression and defend them from violence of every kind. Let us now turn to the Slave laws of the South and West and examine them too. I will give you the substance only, because I fear I shall trespa.s.s too much on your time, were I to quote them at length.

1. _Slavery_ is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest posterity.

2. The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; while the kind of labor, the amount of toil, the time allowed for rest, are dictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages given. A pure despotism governs the human brute; and even his covering and provender, both as to quant.i.ty and quality, depend entirely on the master's discretion[A].

[Footnote A: There are laws in some of the slave states, limiting the labor which the master may require of the slave to fourteen hours daily.

In some of the states there are laws requiring the masters to furnish a certain amount of food and clothing, as for instance, _one quart_ of corn per day, or _one peck_ per week, or _one bushel_ per month, and "one linen s.h.i.+rt and pantaloons for the summer, and a linen s.h.i.+rt and woolen great coat and pantaloons for the winter," &c. But "still," to use the language of Judge Stroud "the slave is entirely under the control of his master,--is unprovided with a protector,--and, especially as he cannot be a witness or make complaint in any known mode against his master, the apparent object of these laws may _always_ be defeated."