An inquiry into the nature and character of ancient and modern slavery. To which is added a brief review of a book entitled, Testimony of God against slavery, by Rev. La Roy Sunderland

Front matter

i

Si

AN

Section 1.— Preliminary remarks on the terms, stranger, servant, and bondman, ..'--- Sec. 2.— Farther remarks on strangers, - - - 10

Sec. 3. — Did" the favors conferred on the circumcised stranger elevate his social condition above the reach of perpetual slavery ? 12

Sec 4. — Did Slavery exist anciently among the children of Israel, or did it not ? ----- 14

Sec 5. — From among what class of people were slaves taken ? 29

Sec 6. — Was there a difference between the slavery of the Hebrews, and that of strangers ? - - - 34

Sec 7. — Did the Old Testament scriptures include under the term "Oppression" &c Slavery, or the loss of liberty ? 30

Sec 8. — When were slaves said to be oppressed, or in what did their oppression consist ? 40

Sec 9.— Yet after all, was not ancient Slavery used merely as a punishment for crime; and ought to be viewed in this light, and in no other ? 47

Sec 10. — Is the possession of the liberties of one man by another, necessarily, sin ? - - - - - 51

Sec 11. — Js Slavery consistent with the Gospel dispensation; i. e. can it exist without sin under it? -' - 52

Chapter II

Brief Review of Rev. L. R Sunderland's Book, entitled, Testimony of God against Slavery, - - - 68 Sec 1.— Strictures on Mr. S's view of Slavery, - G8 Sec 2. — A few remarks on the course adopted by Mr. S. in the

above work,* .... - 91

Sec 3. — Review of his testimony from "Moses," Sec 4.— Continued, .... 95

Sec 5. — Review of his testimony from Joshua, Job, and Ezra, 97 Sec 6.— Do. from David, .... 99

Sec 7. — Do. from Solomon, ... - 101

Sec 8. — Do. from Isaiah, ... - 102

Sec 9.— Do, from Jeremiah, - - - 103

Sec 10. — Do. from Ezekiel, Daniel, Ilosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah,

Micah, Nahum. Habakknk, Zechariah, and Malachi, 105

Sec. 11.— Do. from Jesus Christ, - - - IOC

Sec 12.— Do. from St. Paul, - - - - 107

Sec 13.— Do. from St. James, St. Peter, St. John, - HO

Sec 14. — Some farther remarks on various sentiments divulged by our Author, in his No let, - - - H3

Preface

We are aware that some may think the present production uncalled for, inasmuch as enough has been written to satisfy the most incredulous. This position, however, is not always tenable. Many people are led more by feeling than by reason or argument. To have such act understandingly they must receive "line upon line, and precept upon precept." And when we view the measures and plans that are adopted by a certain class of men to bring about a certain professed benevolent object at the present day, we feel that every man ought to act understandingly and in the fear of God. The abolition of that growing evil, — domestic negro slavery, — is ardently desired by all true lovers of human kind. That it will be abolished, we have no doubt. But of the precise time, no manknoweth; yet we would hope, it may be near. But that we "remove every stumbling block," it is proper that we build upon the "right foundation." That our premises be correct ; and that our inferences be just. In view of these principles, it is, that we have offered these pages to the public. We make no pretensions to perfection. We shall not be surprised, therefore, if many errors are detected by the scrutinizing and the critic. We offer it to the public as it is, — hoping that it may be a feeble means of helping such a? are enquiring concerning their duty on the momentous slave subject, to look well to the "foundation" before they "build thereon." Let them not be carried away with the idea, that a "system" is necessarily "answerable" for all "its abuses," — "that all slavery is sin," — "that its "relation" must be abolished, because it cannot be abused," and that "oppression," "scourging," "maiming," "murder," "theft," "separation of man and wife," "adulter)^," and the wjjole black catalogue of sins that were ever committed by any people however wicked are the real genuine characteristics "of the slave system!" We say, let them beware of such ideas as these, for they are false ! Slavery never can be abolished by such a false representation of things. View things as they are, and then act accordingly. Let wisdom, prudence and the Word of God direct ; and not the blind, headlong, rash precipitancy of squeamish feeling. And then will slavery speedily come to an end, which is the earnest and sincere desire and prayer of the

AUTHOR.

Lovell, Feb. 1836.

INTRODUCTION,

The present is a day of benevolence and philanthropy. Never was there a time when there prevailed so strong and so ardent desire to better the condition of man as the present. And yet equally true is it, that so ardent is the desire, that unless the means are well looked to, it is to be feared, that, in some instances, at least, it may frustrate its own desires. For it is too much the case that the mind of man is predisposed to vibrate from the one extreme to the other ; one point of which is as far from truth, as the other.

In all agitated questions therefore, these feelings and passions which help on these extreme vibrations, should have a steady helm, — judgement and wisdom, — to regulate them ; — without which these feelings will uniformly lead us astray. The impropriety, consequently. of appealing to the passions for assistance, where judgement and wisdom ought to direct, is not, of itself, a principle of humanity. If we are to be directed by benevolent feelings and passions merely, to all such as are actually suffering ; we might throw open our prison doors, and cease enacting laws. For all these laws and prisons are based on the ground that crime is punishable ; which punishment is not a sensation of pleasure but of pain. Now if our philanthropic feeling* alone are to be consulted, we should certainly say, it gives us grief to see our fellow-beings suffer. Yet true philanthropy which is composed of prudence, judgement and wisdom, as well as of benevolent feelings and passion, for any individual, approves of the condemnation. For a principle of that philanthropy is, "It is better that thefeiv suffer than the many."

Among the other objects of philanthropy, which are 1

'Z

engaging the attention of the humane, that of Negro Slavery is not the least. The slavery of one part of the human family by an other part, is a fact which calls loudly for the interposition of measures for its utter abolition. Yet as "the love of Money is the root of all evil," so is it necessary to be doubly watchful and circumspect that we do not "pull down" faster "than we build up." That we do not rivet the chains of bondage more strong than they were before. And as a director in assisting us in our first steps which must be made so cautiously, it is proper that we have a definite idea of what the evil is, in, and of'itself; divested of all extraneous evils which may attend it as circumstances or effects. This definite idea then will be couched in a definition. This definition must be composed of a sufficient number of characteristics to distinguish it from every thing else. A characteristic is a property attached to any thing which is inseverable from it. Which is essential to the existence of that thing, or which cannot exist without it. Tims sweetness is a characteristic of sugar, and heat of fire ; for neither of these substances can exist without these their respective characteristics. We shall define negro slavery, therefore, thus : The possession or retention of one man's liberties by another, independently as a punishment for personal crime.

This definition embraces the bonds of the slave to his Master. But the Master is under bonds also. Although his bonds are not in the hands of any human being, yet they are not the less binding. Should he break them, the awful consequences will fall on his own head, in just retribution for his own unrighteous conduct. — - These bonds are embraced in the "Moral Law of God." "Love thy neighbor as thyself." That is do by him in his circumstances, as thou wouldst wish to be done by, were the same circumstances your own portion. — Not that he is to be immediately "set free," — although if it could be consistently done, it would be a thing greatly to be desired ; — because a poor man might on the same principle, wish his rich neighbor to divide his property with him ; — or the rich man were he poor might wish the same thing, yet does any one suppose that such rich neighbor breaks this moral precept, should he not thus distribute his property ? Most certainly not. To the Master, therefore, slavery is apolitical regulation which is to be controlcd by moral obligation.

Slavery, as a system, therefore consists of the reciprocal "bonds," both of the Master and Slave. Those of the slave are necessarily embraced in the consequence of the loss of his liberty ; and those of the Master in his accountability to his God. We would therefore say, that to the master, slavery is a political regulation, controled by moral obligation.

This, we suppose to present a fair view of the principles of the slavery system. The bonds of the slave, as w T ell as those of the master, will require a few remarks.

Some may suppose that slavery must essentially consist in the "holding of human beings as property." But if this is slavery, then every individual, who from inability, old age, sickness or any other cause which renders him unsaleable, is not a "slave ;" notwithstanding he may be compelled to labor beyond his strength, — go hall starved, — naked, — and receive a flagellation seven times a week ! — Neither is the simple "right" of holding "property" in men any more tenable. For if all the control a master has over his negro, is the simple "right" of selling him as property, the negro can retain ever)' right of a free citizen. They cannot control his liberties in the least. He may be considered in the light, somewhat of the "eastern timber lands," as an article upon which to speculate, but not, in particular, to occupy. For the negro himself may be at his liberty to do as he pleases. But am I told he could not be sold, unless he could be used ? That is none of our concern. If you have the "'right,"- sell him (/you can.

Others have supposed that it consists in the "JorciMi detention" of the slave's liberties. Consequently, it force has not been used, the individual so held is not a slave.

What is to be done, therefore, with the following case ? — A nesro, a slave, whom we shall call A. goes i<

B. and agrees that, for a certain sum, he will serve him all the days of his life. B. pays over the sum, — not to the negro, — but to his former master ; and takes the negro to himself. This negro then, notwithstanding he was "bought," — "property recognized in him," — and whose liberties are entirely out of his own hands and always will be ; yet because he was "willing," — was not compelled, — is no slave !*

But again : every person who is forcibly detained, is a slave. Consequently all persons taken on legal process !

We have said "the master was under bonds to the slave." This we shall now endeavor to explain. By the expression however, we do not wish to be understood as saying the master's obligations to his slave are particular ones ; or that they were made with a particular reference to slaves ; but that they originate from general laws, which are binding on every individual on the globe. These obligations are embraced in the moral law of God, "love thy neighbor as thyself," — live irreproachably, — and obey all his commands, "that thy soul may live." Now we say, these injunctions are binding on all mankind, — on the men of the North, as well as on the men of the South. Neither are they of partial application, but are to govern man in all his acts* as well those of a social and of a religious nature, as those governing slaves. Notwithstanding the slave is completely in his hands to do with him as seemeth him good: yet moral obligation to his God will restrain the master from abusing him. He will give him that which is "just and equal," and will deal with him as with children.

These then are the bonds under which we believe every master is placed who has slaves. But does this destroy the relation which exists between master and slave ? Surely not. If the master have the entire lib-

*"The Editor of the Southern Baptist, the Rev. Mr. Brisbane," says the Christian Watchman, "assures us that 'he has more than once, offered his slaves their freedom, and yet they still remain in bondage, though they have full and free permission to go whenever they please to Liberia, or any other place where the laws of the land will allow them to enjoy their freedom.' "

erty of the slave, so that it is his, in every sense of the word ; it is nothing more than what may be said of himself.

Every master is in his own possession, and has a right to do with himself as he chooses, in virtue of the relation which he stands in to himself. He has no liberties but what belong to himself. Js he, therefore, merely in virtue of that relation, a right to get drunk, — to lie. — to cheat, — to defraud, — or to murder ? Or has the parent, in virtue of the relation which he holds to his child, a right to abuse him ? We know it is objected that the relation between parent and child is different from that of master and slave. — But in what respects we could never divine. The child has no liberty of his own, and never had. He was born subject to his parent, — he receives no wages for his labor, — has no right to its fruits — i. e. as a rev T ard, — he may be whipped, — scourged, maimed, he. — may also be let, — sold for money, and disposed of as property ! until he is 21 years of age ! And what more can you do with a slave ? Do we hear it said, the law interferes with this abuse of the child? That has nothing to do with the subject. We are now speaking of the "relation," and ol that alone. We ask, is there, by such treatment of the child, a violation of the relation there existing, any more than there is in the treatment of the master to his slave ? — By what natural, inherent right, aside from the obligations of the moral law of God, on the parent, has the child a right to interfere with such parental treatment : Has he, or can he have, any more than the slave ? The parent therefore abuses no relation, for the child is his own. He can dispose of him without his consent, — u hind him out" to whomsoever he chooses by a trade for a stipulated sum ! — Apply the money to his own usein the same way that he would if he had sold any piec<* of property whatever ! — while the child must work for nought !

So it is with any property that a man has the entire possession of. He may put it to any use he please* and not abuse his "right" so to do in consequence of 1* the relation he holds to it. He may gamble it away, — spend it in a brothel. — at a grog-shop — in carousing, — and in dissipation. But does he do right ? Does the moral law of God uphold all these courses merely because there is no relation abused ? If, therefore, every relation is to be abolished which may be made a sinful use of, what, kind leader, shall we have left? Even man himself, must submit to the separation of his body and soul, — never more to have a relation of any kind, which it is possible to have eventuate in sin, established between them ! Consequently, should they come together again, they will be mere machines, — incapable of either a good or a bad act !

It is presumed that by this time the reader sees the impropriety of the abolitionist principle which they apply to slavery, — that it ought to be abolished, because the master can commit sin with his slaves without an abuse of the slave relation !

But though man may not abuse his relation to his slave, in any abuse which he may offer such an one in itself cousidered ; yet he may break the moral laws of God by making- such a use of this relation. For since man's relation with surrounding things, whether visible or invisible, is as extensive as his acts ; it follows, that, were his relations to be his criterion for good or bad actions, there would have been no need of a moral Law. But inasmuch as the former is different in this respect, we have been furnished with the latter, to which we are accountable, and to which the acts arising from our relation to all other things, must yield. So far as the master is concerned, therefore, the slave system, is, strictly speaking, the doing unto slaves in their situation, as the master would wish to be dealt by, were the same circumstances his own. This is what we mean by the slave system, wherever that term is used, as it respects the master.

Before any individual is justified in saying that k ' ; slavery is sin" he must have indubitable evidence that every instance oi it is sin, in any and every form. For if a person can imagine a case of slavery where no sin can properly and rationally be supposed to be connected with that slavery, then it follows that slavery can exist without sin ; consequently sin and slavery are two things. That slavery is not sin, in and of itself, it seems to us must appear evident to every one who looks candidly, with a sincere desire to arrive at the truth ; and, as it is hoped, the following pages will make obvious to him. Yet no less true is it, that it is an "eri/," not only by its being associated intimately with traits which must be considered as such, and as nothing else ; but as bein^ an evil of itself. These evils call loudly for redress, but which cannot be redressed but by the abolition of the system itself. But the system can never be thus abolished so long as we do not have just views of it. By some we would fain be made to believe that extreme oppression — hard and vigorous service, — cruel bondage, — severe flagellations, — broken down mental intellects, — brutal punishments, — adultery, theft, and murder are the "essentials 91 of slavery ! — That they are chareicteristics of the system. But by holding up these as characteristics rather than as circumstances, or evils. attending it ; they overthrow their own intentions. For it they are charastenstics, then they must all be present in every case of slavery. Consequently wherever they are absent there is no slavery. But, let me ask, where is there a case where all these are present, or even one half of them? Indeed, how many cases are thereof acknowledged slavery, where not one of them is present. The remarks made above, therefore, includes all the principles of slavery. We have been the more particular in these remarks, because some, we apprehend, have received an erroneous idea in relation to that system. Supposing that a system is answerable for all the bad uses which may be made of it. This, it will be seen, is a fallacious method of reasoning. The very principles which are assumed here, would, if carried out, destroy every system in the world, whether good or bad. Religion would be considered as false, and "Christianity, a fable !"

The object of the following pages may be presented thus :

1st. To give what we consider a fair view of the slavery "system."

2d. To show in some measure, incidentally, the difference between the "characteristics" and attendant "evils" of this system.

3d. An inquiry into the nature of slavery among the ancients.

4th. Whether such slavery is sin.

5th. Whether slavery is compatible as existing without sin under the Gospel Dispensation, &tc. These items are not taken up the in order in which they are here enumerated ; but the principles they involve are essentially included in the remarks which are subjoned in the following pages.

No remarks therefore which follow are to be construed so as to have them support the idea of slavery ! Nothing can be farther from the intention of the author. For, while he contends that slavery did anciently exist, and that slavery recognized the same rights or characteristics as slavery now, — that the abuse of that system was, or might be, attended with the same sinful effects., —that the essential principles of it were they the same as the principles of it now, — that the principles were then, and must be, so long as it exists, the same, — that slavery, in itself, is not sin, he. Yet all this is merely in attestation that slavery is not what some endeavor to make it, so exceeding sinful that no slaveholder can be saved who continues the practice ; but that while it is an evil greatly to be deplored, and which calls for efficient means for its abolition with a voice not to be misunderstood, it requires deep thought and a close examination for its consistent extermination. And that while it thus rests, during this time of consideration and reflection, those who hold slaves are not committing that sin which must exclude them from the special blessing of Heaven.

CHAPTER I,

Scripture Evidence of Ancient Slavery, and of what Slavery is.

SECTION 1.

Ppeliminary Remarks on the terms stranger, servant AND BONDMEN.

We frequently meet with the terms "stranger," "servant," and "bondmen" in reading the Pentateuch. Consequently the following remarks have been elicited. Strangers,

These were all such as did not belong to the genuine stock of Israel,-*; foreigners.— faring renounced idola try, they lived and sojourned with the Israelites and be came partially incorporated with them. Of these strangers there were two classes. And distinguished by the epithet "dwellers" and "sojourners" See Lev. 19 : 33, 34. The first of these are sometimes called "proselytes of the Covenant," while the latter "proselytes of the gate." Proselytes of the Covenant were circumcised and enjoyed all the religious privileges, and subjected to all the penalties of the Israelites. "When a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord ; let all his males be circumcised," and in doincr this the stranger becomes "as one thai u born m the land." Ex.V2 : 48. Numb. 9 : 14.

The other class were those who "renounced idolatry —acknowledged the true Cod— obsei vt d the seven precepts of Noah ; but were not circumcised, nor were they obliged to observe any of the Mosaic Institutions. — Clarke.— They were therefore debarred by Moses from eating the passover. For the law is, "no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." Ex. 12: 48.

This distinction it is of consequence to keep in mind ; otherwise we may find some difficulty in reconciling certain texts. Lev. 25 : 35 — 37 and Deut. 23 : 26 is an example.

Servants,

These were mostly slaves. Hagar is called a u maid.' Gen. 16: 1,2; but in the 21st chap, she is called a "bond-woman." — "But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him. then shall he eat thereof." Ex. 12 : 44. Mr. Watson says, "formerly among the Hebrews and the neighboring nations, the greater part of servants were slaves ; that is to say, they belonged absolutely to their masters, who had a right to dispose of their persons — their bodies — goods — and even of their lives in some cases." Bib. and Theo. Diet. Art. Servant.

Hired Servants.

These were probably taken from among the "sojourners" or "'proselytes of the gate." From among whom the Israelites could "buy slaves" or "hire servants." — See Lev, 25 : 45, and Ex. 12 : 45.

Bondmen.

From the very epithet by which these individuals were distinguished, we cannot suppose them to be either Icings, priests, or law givers. More consistent is it to suppose that they were of the same class, as to condition, with the "Gibeanites" who were made "bondmen" and "hewers of wood and drawers of water" forever. See Josh 9: 23 and 27. — This term was applied to such only as were slaves, or liable to be, for an indefinite period of time, or for life : — generally over six years.

SECTION 2. Farther remarks on Strangers

We wish to have the reader obtain a clear idea in relation to this class of people. For in these modern days

"We would fain be made to believe that all strangers were alike — tbat tbe same law governed them, as governed the Israelites themselves, — and if one class was exempt from slavery, all were, — pagan, — heathen, — Canaanites and all. We wish therefore just to make a few additional remarks before we quit the subject of strangers.

And we would observe, that the scripture is very particular .in the application of certain epithets to each of the particular classes of strangers which we have noticed. While the one class is not to be "vexed" the other is to be "loved as thyself?' Lev. 19 : 33, 34, — the one can eat of the passover, the other can not — the one when in want or distress can be assisted with money or food without usury, — the other must beg usury. — Lev. 25 : 35, 6 and Deut. 23 : % — the one is acknowledged as brethren ; the other not known by any such appellation. — ib.

By keeping up this distinction between strangers, it is very easy to see the appropriate application of various laws and usages among the Israelites. For no one would suppose that a law which was made for a circumcised person, could be consistently applied to an uncircumcised one. And as the Israelites were all under this rite, all the laws they made, by which to regulate themselves and others who dwelt with them, were evidently founded in relation to this. They recognized circumcision as the door through which every one must enter, in order to obtain the protection of their law, or their religious privileges. How, then, could an uncircumcised stranger expect to receive the benefits of the Hebrew's law? What right had he to expect it? — Surely none. Hence, all those passages which speak of strangers, as being on a level with the Israelites, must be understood as refering to the "proselytes of the Covenant," — or strangers of the first class — those who had been circumcised.

If we look at the privileges which these circumcised strangers enjoyed, no one, who is at all conversant with the usages of the Israelites, will suppose for a moment, that the uncircumcised are intended, — or even could be. It will be perceived that these privileges were equal to those ot the genuine stock of Jacob. — They had the law read to them the same as the Israelites. "There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women and little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them." Josh. 8 : 35. — He could eat the passover — Ex. 12: 48, — could offer up sacrifices — Numb. 15: 14, 15— subject in this respect, to the same law as the Hebrew, see v. 16 — same immunity from crimes through ignorance — v. 26, — in this, governed by the same law as was the Hebrews — v. 29, — if unclean was purified in the same way — Numb. 19 : 9, 10 — same provision for his escape from the slayer, or avenger of blood — « Numb. 35: 15 — was to receive the same righteous judgment with the Israelite — Deut. 1 : 16 — was to rejoice in all the good things which the Lord gave him and the Israelites — Deut. 26: 11, — was commanded to observe and do all the words of the law, — Deut. 31 : 12 ■ — It is almost needless to observe here, that the uncircumcised could not do this. — Is (to be) to the Jews as one born among them, and to be loved as they love themselves.— Lev. 19: 34.— Deut. 10 : 19.

Section 3

Does the favors conferred on the circumcised stranger, elevate his social condition above the reach of "perpetual slavery?"