Slavery and the church

Front matter

SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH.

BY

WILLIAM HOSIER

Chapter I. Slayeey Defined, 9

PAhH.

CHAPTER n.

SLAYEEY A SIN", 19

CHAPTER m.

SLAYEEY A GEEAT SIN, 29

CHAPTER IV.

SLAYEEY A SIN" ENDEE ALL CIECUMSTANCES, ... 33

CHAPTER V.

SLAYEEY NOT SANCTIONED BY THE OLD TESTAMENT, . 44

CHAPTER VI.

6LAYEEY NOT SANCTIONED BY TETE NEW TESTAMENT, . 52

VI CONTEXTS.

CHAPTER YE.

PAGB.

SLAVERY NEVER AN ACT OF BENEVOLENCE, ... 61

CHAPTER VIII.

SLAVERY NEVER THE RESULT OF NECESSITY, . 4

Part II

THE RELATION OF SLAVERY TO THE CHURCH. CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER H.

SLAVE-HOLDERS CANNOT BE CHRISTIANS, .... 98

Part III

DUTY OF THE CHURCH IX RELATIOX TO SLAVERY. CHAPTER I.

EXTIRPATION OF SLAVERY FROM THE CHURCH, . . 123

CHAPTER II.

EXTIRFATION OF SLAVERY FROM THE WORLD, . . 129

CONTENTS. VTI

CHAPTER IH.

PAGE.

THE EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY DEMANDED BY AN IMPAR- TIAL ADMINISTRATION OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE, . 134:

Chapter IV. The Exclusion Of Slavery Essential To The Peace

AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH, 141

Chapter V

THE EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY ESSENTIAL TO THE EVAN- GELIZATION OF THE WORLD, 155

Chapter VI. The Exclusion Of Slavery Inevitable, . . . . 162

CHAPTER Vn.

CIVIL FREEDOM SHOULD BE MADE SUBSERVIENT TO THE

CAUSE OF EMANCIPATION, 173

CHAPTER Vm.

NO MIDDLE GROUND THE CHURCH MUST EITHER

ABOLISH SLAVERY OR ADOPT IT, 179

CHAPTER IX.

CONCLUSION, 197

SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH.

Chapter I. Slavery Defined

It is important, in the outset of this discussion, to ascertain the exact meaning of the term Slavery. Many have appeared as the defenders of slavery, who never would have done so, had they admitted the full import of the word. They have narrowed down the meaning of the term until — in their own imagination — it was reduced to a defensible point, and then, with great industry, endeavored to construct arguments for its support. All this labor might have been saved, and the cause of truth not a little advanced, if they had adhered to the established use of words.

A slave, in the proper sense of the word, is one

whose personal, political, civil, and religious rights

have been swept away — one who may be bought and 1* sold, like any other property, and who is obliged to obey the commands of a master, whether those commands are right or wrong. Dr. Webster defines the word slave as follows: 1. "A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. The slaves of modern times are generally purchased like horses and oxen. 2. One who has lost the power of resistance ; or, one who surrenders himself to any power whatever, as a slave to passion, to lust, to ambition." This is, perhaps, the highest literary authority on the subject, and it is in entire accordance with the slave laws, both of our own and other countries, whether relating to the present age, or to any former period. A few citations from slave laws, which are always the same in substance, will settle this question :

" A slave is one who is in the power of the master to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor ; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything but what must belong to his master." (Laivs of Louisiana, Civil Code, Art. 35.)

" The slave is entirely subject to the will of his master." (Id., Civil Code, Art. 273.)

" Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal, in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever." (Laws of South Carolina, Brev. Dig., 229.)

" In case the personal property of a ward shall consist of spe-

SL AVERY DEFINED. 11

cific articles, such as slaves, working beasts, animals of any kind, stock, furniture, plate, books, and so forth, the court, if it shall deem it advantageous to the ward, may, at any time, pass an < arder for the sale thereof." (Laws of Maryland, Act of 1798, Chap. 61.)

The above quotations are a sample of tbe slave laws of every State and every nation. In some instances there may be more rigor, in others less, but slavery never exists in the absence of the above principles.

It is of slavery that we write — not of its abuses. To treat of the abuses of slavery, would be as absurd as to treat of the abuses of any other high crime. Hence, our reference to the slave code is sparing, and embraces only a few of its most approved and unquestioned principles. What possible enormities are, or have been, engrafted upon these principles, is comparatively unimportant, since the system, under any conceivable administration, would be utterly intolerable. It is not for us to talk of incidental and contingent horrors attendant upon guilt — it does not become a grave, ethical discussion to take advantage of such things. If slavery, in its most common and blameless character, is not wholly vile and altogether beyond endurance — if it be not one of the highest crimes ever committed by man — then we yield the ground at once. AVe have no wish to take advantage of any accidental evils connected with slavery. A good system might be abused, but the abuses would not prove tbe Bjstem bad. In discussing the moral character of an act, we only wish to know what the act is in its most simple form. Were we discussing the moral character of murder, we should not wish to encumber the subject with any special cruelties which might have taken place at some particular time ; we should only want to know what murder is in its nature — in its most common and least exaggerated character. "We have to do with the substance of slavery, and not with its incidents.

There are three elements of the slave system wholly inseparable from it — three characteristics of the slave, which distinguish his condition from that of all other persons :

1. The slave is under the entire control of his master.

2. The slave is property — a chattel, real or personal.

3. The slave is a perpetual, unconditional, hereditary servant.

Of these in order.

Absolute Subjection.

The entire supremacy of the master is absolutely essential to slavery. The system could not exist if this main pillar were removed. Masters claim, and the law gives them, entire control. Slaves must do what they are bidden, be it right or wrong, or suffer any punishment their owners see proper to inflict. The law recognizes no right in the slave to resist the master in anything — no, not even in defending his own life or virtue. It is true, the slave laws of this country do not directly authorize the master to take the life of the slave at pleasure ; and

SLAVETCY DEFINED. 13

in this respect they are perhaps better than the slave laws of ancient Greece and Rome ; bnt all slave owners indirectly have this authority. They may command the slave to do what they please, and kill him if he disobeys — that is, whip him to death for stubbornness, or shoot him for alleged resistance. As no slave is allowed to be a witness in any case against his master, or any other white person, it is impossible to bring the offender to justice, nnless he has had the indiscretion to commit the offence before a white person. The slave has not one religious or civil privilege guaranteed to him. In respect to everything of this kind, he stands before the law, not as a human being, but as a brute, to be disposed of according to the will of the owner. Blackstone truly calls this power " absolute and unlimited," and considers it essential to the idea of slavery :

' : Pure and proper slavery does not, nay, cannot, subsist in England: such, I mean, whereby an absolute and unlimited power is given to the master over the life and fortune of the slave. (Obmwa., Book i, Ch. 14.)

It would be well if the law went no farther, but it even lays the master under disabilities : he may not emancipate the slave, nor pay him wages, nor elevate him by education; that is, the law will not permit either of these things without embarrassment, and some of them it wholly prohibits. Thus, while tho master has all authority for evil towards his slave, his authority for good is seriously abridged. It follows, therefore, that slavery is not only an absolute personal

14 SLAVERY AXD THE CHUECH.

despotism on the part of the master, but a malignant despotism — it may never relax into justice or generosity. The law may, or may not authorize special barbarity; but it never gives to the master less than entire and undisputed authority over the slave. Hence, where such control is wanting, we cannot denominate the condition slavery — it is not slavery, whatever else it may be.

Slaves are Property.

The slave is unquestionably property, and nothing but property — a chattel — so claimed by all slave-holders, and so designated by all slave laws. By this one provision he is stricken from the human, and classed with the brute. He ceases to be a man, and takes rank with cattle. He is mere property — a thing to be bought, and sold, and possessed, as freely and truly as a horse or an ox, or any inanimate chattel, as, for instance, a watch or a wagon. It is not merely the slave's services that are owned, or bought, or sold in this manner ; no — it is himself — his body and soul, with all their powers and capabilities. It is the man converted into a thing, that constitutes the article of traffic. To man, as man, belong certain inalienable rights; but toman, as a slave, belongs nothing. His flesh, and bones, and spirit, and life, are the property of another. He is a chattel personal, and liable to all the chances of property, like any other chattel. He has not even the right to life. His master may be forbidden to kill him, but the slave has no right to remonstrate against

SLAVERY DEFINED. 15

being killed. This feature of slavery is considered by Mr. Barnes as the chief characteristic of the institution. It is, however, but one of the characteristics of slavery ; there are other things equally fundamental, although such ownership as the master has in the slave is wholly unknown to any other relation in life. The husband possesses his wife, but she is not a chattel ; parents possess children, but they are not chattels ; masters have servants, but servants are not chattels : in none of these relations is there anything analogous to this feature of slavery. It is slavery, and slavery only, that strips a man of humanity so completely as to make him take rank with articles of merchandise.

Slaves are Servants.

Some have endeavored to show that slavery consists in mere servitude.

" I define slavery," says Dr. Paley, " to be an obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant." (Mor. and Pol. Phil., Book iii, Ch. 3.)

This is only a description of involuntary servitude, and includes but a part of what is necessary to constitute slavery. Dr. Fuller, who tries to defend slavery on the basis of this definition, is, therefore, wholly at fault. Blackstone expressly affirms that servitude may be perpetual, where slavery is not possible :

"A slave or a negro, the moment he lands in England, falls under the protection of the law, and so far becomes a freeman ; though the master's right to his services may possibly continue." (Com?n., Book i, Ch. 1.)

Again : " It is now laid down that a slave, or negro, the instant he lands in England, becomes a freeman ; that is, the law will protect him in the enjoyment of his person and his property ; yet with regard to any right which the master may have lawfully acquired to the perpetual service of John or Thomas, this will remain exactly the same." (Id., Book i, Ch. 14.)

It will not do, therefore, to make the idea of servitude alone, the representative of slavery, inasmuch as it comprehends only one element of slavery^. By way of illustration, we may take the crime of murder, and define it thus — " killing a human being ;" or even thus, " willfully killing a human being." But would either of these definitions be correct ? Xot at all. And yet it is true, beyond all doubt, that killing a human being is essential to the crime of murder, as cognizable by our laws. The fact is, the above definitions include only a part of what is comprehended in the crime specified, and for this reason cannot be admitted as correct. The same is true of Dr. Paley's definition of slavery. He has defined what may be a crime, but not what constitutes the crime in question. The difference is this : all slaves are servants, but all servants are not slaves. Kor does the qualification — '-without the contract or consent of the servant" — by any means embrace all the essential features of the slave system. A servant, though his servitude bo perpetual, may be no chattel; his remaining personal rights may be secured by law as ef-

SLAVERY DEFINED.

fectually as those of any other man, and his children may be free in all respects. But the servitude of the slave is perpetual, unconditional, and hereditaryit applies to him and all his descendants for all time, without any qualifications whatever.

Either the above is a just exposition of slavery, or we have no word in our language expressive of the condition of the unemancipated colored man in the Southern States. A servant he is, and that, too, under the most abject circumstances, but he is far more than a servant: he is a thing— a chattel personal, and the service which he performs is done, not with his own hands, for he has no hands with which to labor—his limbs belong to his master. He is more than a servant chattel— he is a subject of the most absolute despotism. The master's will is the slave's only law. He may heed no other command, whether emanating from God or man. It appears, therefore, that slavery is a term used to signify a complication of wrongs. It denotes one who is stripped of all but life, and whose life is held by a very uncertain tenure — the will of his master.

This is slavery as it exists among us, and as it has existed in all ages of the world. It is not an exaggerated picture, drawn for effect, but an exact and careful delineation of the system, as it stands recorded upon the statute books of slave-holding States. Kor are these laws in any respect a dead letter. They are everywhere enforced to the full extent, or at least as much so as any human laws. We never hear of the slave's becoming free through the inoperative char-

SLAVERY AND TIIE CHURCH.

acter of the laws. His personal treatment may be better or worse, but he is still a thing, and not a man. His good treatment gains no legal immunities for him, or his wife, or his children. Chattels thej are, and chattels they must forever remain, while under the slave law.

Our estimate of the system must be formed on the basis of its entire character, and not on any of its particular features. The parts separately may be more tolerable than when combined. We shall, therefore, speak of slavery, not as it has been defined by its apologists, but as it is — not as an ideality which never had an existence, except in the mind of its inventor, but as an actual institution, known and read of all men. We readily admit, that the continued introduction of what does not belong to the definition, would vitiate it, just as certainly as do the omissions which we have noticed in the definition of murder. If we should define murder to be " killing a man with malice aforethought, by burning him over a slow fire," the definition would be faulty through excess— it includes more than is necessary, and more than commonly attaches to the crime of murder. Just so with slavery : if we define it to be " an obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant, and also to be a chattel personal in the hands of the master, submitting, in all things to his sovereign, unlimited control, and receiving forty lashes a day" — the definition will at once be pronounced incorrect, because the forty lashes per day are not essential to the condition

SLAVEItY DEFINED. 19

of the slave, nor arc they commonly inflicted. They may be inflicted if the master pleases, and so may the murderer burn his victim over a slow fire, or cut him into inch pieces. The definition we have given is based on the laws of the slave States, and on the entire history of slavery, as it now prevails, and lias prevailed in all ages < >f the world. It is important to distinguish between slavery and serfdom, or villena^e, or servitude. The latter have some of the elements of slavery — just as excusable homicide has some of the elements of willful murder — but, as we never confound the different kinds of killing, so neither should we the different kinds of servitude. Let slavery stand upon its own merits, as defined by law, and by the common language of men, especially where its ethical character is under consideration. We have no right to pervert the meaning of the term, and then pronounce it either good or bad, according to our definition.

Chapter II. Slavery A Sin"

As we have defined slavery, its moral obliquity admits of no dispute, except among that class who believe the slave was made to be a slave, and that he has no capacities or rights beyond what are provided

20 SLAVERY AXD THE CrTLTtCH.

for in that abject condition. But even those who base their argument on the assnmed inferiority of the slave, must yield the point, or push their conclusions much farther than they have yet done. The humanity of the slave must be denied, or the sinfulness of slavery is evident. Short of this extreme, the advocates of slavery cannot stop ; because the rights of man belong to man under every exigency of life ; they are inherent in his nature, and cannot be separated therefrom by the arbitrary institutions of society. Human laws do not reach the endowments which we receive from nature. Manhood is prior to law, and therefore always paramount when the claims of law and humanity come into conflict.

The sinfulness of Slavery is established by arguments drawn from the following sources :

1. The constitution of man.

2. The civil law.

3. The moral sense of mankind.

4. The Scriptures.

1. The Constitution of Man.

" Sin is the transgression of the law." It is the transgression of any right law, whether divine or human. The law of God is embodied in the constitution of his creatures no less plainly than in the ten commandments that were written upon tables of stone. The nature and faculties of man declare for what he was made, and proclaim slavery a violence and an indignity offered to the Creator's work. The slave is a man, and hence, justly entitled to be treated as a man. He is a man,

SLAVERY A SIN. 21

and is obligated to perforin the duties of a man. But slavery will admit of neither; it takes away all his rights as a member of the human family, and all his obligations as a creature of God. The following observations of Dr. Whewell bear upon both of these points with much force :

"As far as the limits of humanity extend, there are mutual tirs of duty which bind together all men, and as the basis of all others, a duty of mutual kindness; which, as we see, is acknowledged by the jurists as well as the moralists of Rome, in spite of the originally narrow basis of their jurisprudence. The progress of the conception of humanity, as a universal bond which knits together the whole human race, and makes kindness to every member of it a duty, was immeasurably promoted by the teaching and influence of Christianity. In the course of time, domestic slavery was abolished ; and marriage received the sanction of the church, and was alike honorable in all. The antipathies of nations, the jealousies of classes, the selfishness, fierceness and coldness of men's hearts, the narrowness and dimness of their understandings, have prevented their receiving cordially and fully the comprehensive precepts of benevolence which Christianity delivers ; but, as these obstacles have been more and more overcome, the doctrine has been more and more assented to, and felt to be true, by all persons of moral culture ; that there is a duty of universal benevolence which wo are to bear to men as men ; and which we are to fulfill by dealing with them as men — as beings having the like affections and reason, rights and claims which we ourselves have.

" This conception of humanity as a principle within us, requiring us to recognize in others the same rights which we claim for ourselves, may be further illustrated. Such a princi ple of humanity, requiring us to recognize men as men, requires us more especially to recognize them as such in their capacity of

22 SLAVEBT AND THE CHURCH.

moral agents. They have not only like desires and affections with ourselves, but also like faculties of reason and selfguidance, by which they discern the difference of right and wrong, and feel the duty of doing the right and abstaining from the wrong. This view of their condition as moral agents, is that by which we must entirely sympathize with them ; as it is the view of our own condition in which we are fully conscious of ourselves. Humanity requires that we should feel satisfaction in the desires and means of enjoyment of our fellow men ; but humanity requires, still more clearly, that we should feel a satisfaction in their having the desires and the means of doing their duty. Now, the fundamental rights of which we have so often spoken, the rights of the person, of property, and the like, are means and necessary conditions of duty. It is necessary to moral action, that the agent should be free, not liable to unlimited and unregulated constraint and violence ; that is, that he should have the rights of the person. It is necessary to moral action, that the agent should have some command over external tilings ; for this is implied in action ; that is, it is necessary that he should have the rights of property. And, in like manner, in order that any class of persons may exist permanently in a community, as moral agents, it is requisite that they should possess the right of marriage ; for without that right, some of the strongest of man's desires cannot be under moral control ; nor can the sentiment of rights be transmitted from one generation to another. The right of contract is a necessary accompaniment of the right of property ; for, if the person can possess, he may buy and sell. And thus these rights are necessary conditions of men's being moral agents ; and the humanity which makes us desire that all men should be able to regulate themselves by a love of duty, requires that all should be invested with these rights." {Mem. Mor., Book iii, Chap. 23.)

The slave, being human, must be permitted to exercise the functions of humanity, or the end for which

SLAVERY A GLNf. 23

he was created is contravened. If lie is to be degraded from manhood to a level with the brutes, his human endowments are superfluous, and ought to have been withheld. If his powers of thought are not to be exercised, if his sense of obligation is to be contracted to the single point of obedience to his master, and if he may neither possess anything, nor acquire anything, why were the faculties, the capacity for doing these things, conferred upon him ? Was it intended that these powers should remain latent ? or were they as evidently designed to be cultivated in the slave as in other men 1 The slave is a man, and has the right to be a man. This is the order of God with reference to him, and as plainly expressed as if it had been the subject of a special revelation from Heaven. Do we need a revelation to inform us what our hands and feet, our eyes and ears, were made for ? Could a supernatural communication of that kind render their use any more apparent ? Not in the least. Finding, then, man endowed as he is, the use of those endowments can no longer be questioned. If the eye was made to see with in one case, it was made to see with in all cases ; that is, it was made to be used, and used according to its original design. To make a man throw aside his humanity and become a chattel, to blot him out from civil society, and remove from him every right which is peculiar to man — to do all this, is as clearly sinful as it would be to cut off the hands or the feet without cause, and even more so, because the intellectual, social and moral powers which slavery blights, are of greater consequence than the mem-

24 SLAVERY AXD THE CHURCH.

bers of the body. In short, under the slave system, man cannot be man ; and this blight upon his powers, this necessity of sinking below the nature that God has given, is manifestly a perversion of that nature, and a sin against the primal law of his being.

2. The Civil Law.

Slavery is a perversion of nature, and can only exist by positive statute. This is admitted by slave-holders themselves. No man is born a slave, except as the civil law under which he is born declares him to be such. It is not remarkable, therefore, that all law is naturally against the institution. Slave legislation is special ; it is a departure from all the ordinary principles of law-making. The citation of authorities here can scarcely be necessary, since it is known to all that the sole design of law is to promote the welfare of men. Its objects are rights and wrongs — the enforcement of the former and the prohibition of the latter. Blackstone says the civil law is properly defined to be,

" A rule of civil conduct, prescribed by the supreme power in the State, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong." (Comm., Int., Section 2.)

He further adds :

" Justinian lias reduced the whole doctrine of law to these three general precepts: 1. That we should live honestly; 2. Should hurt nobody ; 3. And should render to every one his due." (Ibid.)

Burke says, " law is beneficence acting by rule;" and

SLAVERY A SIX.

with tliis agree all writers on law. Tlic ci\ il law is, therefore, clearly on the side of tin If the in-

stitution of law bears upon him at all, it is bound by its very nature to do him good. The law should know him only for his benefit. And yet, si range to Bay, law is made the instrument of the complete and total version of all his rights. By law, he is driven from among men, and made to take rank with brutes. Thus an institution which professedly aims at the happiness of every man, becomes the direct occasion of immeasurable injustice. Slavery is the greatest possible out rage upon law ; it destroys every thing that law was intended to preserve. I shall not here attempt to show the causes of this anomaly, hut simply mark its atrocity. That people who cherish civil law, and who thereby profess to he aiming at protection and jus for all, should so far pervert law as to render it destructive of all protection and justice, is truly astonishing. The slave is a man, and claims, as rightfully as any other man, every advantage that can flow from the civil law. How men can sustain Buch law, and yet deny the colored man all participation in it- benefits, is a mystery not easily solved. It is violating all the principles of law. If the negro is a man, he is entitled to protection, and to withhold it from him is an arbitrary and wicked departure from the avowed purposes of government. AVe see not how slavery can be regarded otherwise than sin, if the maxii: law are right, for it pours contempt upon them all. Instead of guarding, it robs; instead of aining rights, it tramples them in the du

3. The Moral Sense of Mankind.

Slavery is repugnant to the moral feelings. Law may be perverted till it sanctions the greatest crimes, but the moral sense of man must always condemn it. The slave is, or is not, a man ; if the former, he has the same rights as other men ; if the latter, his rights are on- ] v those of brute nature. Whatever the law may ordain in the case, conscience is inflexible. We must either cease to make moral distinctions — must abandon all ideas of right and wrong, as applicable to men, or else allow that the slave has the same rights as ourselves. There is no rule in ethics by which we can distinguish the rights of the white man from the rights of the colored man. Justice is the same to both ; protection, liberty, happiness, and all other blessings are the same to man, whatever may be the color of his skin. If the law gives all power to one complexion and denies all to the other, then the law is palpably subversive of right — it is wanting in that attribute of rectitude which is essential to law.