THE ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE OF SLAVERY DISCUSSED ON SCRIPTURE GROUNDS, AND
MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLE EXAMINED.
The true subjective right of self-control defined according to
the Scriptures--The abstract principle of slavery sanctioned by
the Scriptures--The Roman government--Dr. Wayland’s Scripture
argument examined and refuted--The positions of Dr. Channing
and Prof. Whewell examined and refuted.
The inquiry, if the institution of domestic slavery existing amongst
us agrees in its _details_ with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures,
is reserved for a future lecture. We now inquire how far it agrees
with the Holy Scriptures in its great fundamental principles?--the
abstract principles which, thus far, have been shown to be right.
We, of course, acknowledge the full authority of the Scriptures.
Although not a formal philosophical treatise, the Bible embodies no
other than the profoundest principles both of mental and moral
science; and all its teachings are in accordance with them. “To the
law,” then, “and to the testimony.” Do they sanction the principles I
have sought to establish? Do they accord to man any other subjective
right of self-control than simply the _right_ to do that which in
itself is _right_--that is, _good_? True, they assume that he has the
_power_ to do wrong, but at the same time they deny to him _all right_
to do wrong. All those scriptures which forbid his doing _wrong_, and
enjoin it upon him to do _right_, under severe penalties for
disobedience, are in proof. They are too numerous and familiar to
require that I quote them. They all assume that he has power to do
either _right_ or _wrong_, but only a _right_ to do that which is
_right_. Whoever, then, sets up a _right_ to do a thing, and can give
no better reason for it than that he has power to do it in virtue of
his humanity, and that therefore others should not interpose obstacles
in the way of his doing it, on peril of abridging him of a natural
right, assumes far more than the Scriptures allow him; nay, he assumes
that which is forbidden him in Holy Scripture, no less than in reason
and common sense; and if allowed to exercise such lawless power, under
the plea of _natural right_, he could not fail to put an end to all
law, and to precipitate society into a state of anarchy. Therefore,
the government which places minors, aliens, and citizens, who at the
same time allow themselves to be subjects of a foreign prince,
together with uncivilized persons, in circumstances in which they
cannot, or are not likely, to injure their neighbors, or to injure
society, does not, for that reason, deprive them of a _natural_ right,
unless it could be shown that they have a natural right to do the very
thing which the Scriptures declare they have no right to do, that is,
to injure their neighbors! It further follows, that the right to do an
act which involves accountability, is the right to do that which, _in
itself_, _is right_; or, in other words, the only natural right of
self-control is the right to do that which is good. Hence, those who
claim for any class of society a right to political sovereignty,
should be prepared to show that the essential good requires that such
privilege be accorded them, or they fail to establish their right, for
the reason that no right can ever be justly _acquired_ which does not
coincide with the natural right to do good.
Again, we have shown that the abstract principle of slavery is control
by the will of another, with its correlatives: that this is an
essential element of all government; for a government which did not
exercise the right to control men, even against their wills, under
given circumstances, would be no government at all. Do these views
accord with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures? That control is an
essential idea of government, is an intuitive perception, and needs no
proof. The question then resolves itself into this: Do the Scriptures
sanction government? That the Bible itself is only a system of
government, will not be disputed. It _forbids_ and _commands_, and
requires all men to conform their volitions to its requirements, as to
that which is in itself good. Moreover, it sanctions civil government
in the most express terms: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are
ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power,” that is,
the authority of government, “resisteth the ordinance of God; and they
that resist shall receive to themselves damnation,” etc. (Rom. xiii.
1-7. See A. Clarke’s notes.) This was said to the Roman Christians,
and was an injunction to obey Caesar’s government. In that government,
it is well known, the slavery element greatly predominated: but little
room was left for the exercise of self-control; political sovereignty
being denied to the people. In declaring government, even in this
extreme form of controlling the wills of men, to be his appointment,
God establishes the _principle, as in itself right_. Dr. Wayland,
however, (see article, Modes in which Personal Liberty may be
violated,) affirms, “that the gospel is diametrically opposed to the
_principle_ of slavery.”
The moral precepts of the Bible, which he assumes to be diametrically
opposed to the principle of slavery, are, (as quoted by himself,)
“Thou shalt love _thy neighbor as thyself_; and _all things
whatsoever_ ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto
them.” He says that, “were this precept obeyed, it is manifest that
slavery could not in fact exist for a single instant. The _principle_
of the precept is absolutely subversive of the _principle_ of
slavery.” That the gospel should, nevertheless, acknowledge
slaveholders (for neither the Jewish nor the Roman law _required_ any
citizen to hold slaves) as “_believers_,” and “_worthy of all honor_,”
and require of the Christian slaves held by them to acknowledge them
as _brethren_, that is, good men, and accord them _all honor_, is
evidently a troublesome question to the Doctor. There is no room for
surprise. The second scripture quoted, it is allowed, interprets the
first. In what sense then are we to understand the duty inculcated in
the second? There are only two senses in which the form of the
expression will allow us to evolve any significance whatever. The
first is, Do unto another whatsoever you would have him to do unto
you, if you were in his situation; and the second is, Do unto another
whatsoever you would have a _right_ to require another to do unto you,
if you were in his circumstances.
Now if we could suppose that the Saviour intended his language to be
understood in the first sense, it will not perhaps be disputed that it
is our duty to abolish domestic slavery, for we should, no doubt,
desire to be released, if we were in a state of domestic slavery. But,
unfortunately for the argument, this interpretation would not stop at
the abolition of domestic slavery in the case of the African. It would
reach to the domestic slavery of the child also. There is scarcely a
wayward lad in Christendom who could not justly claim release from
parental restraint on the same principle! Nay, more, the criminal at
the bar of civil justice, the inmates of State prisons, and the poor
man in his hovel, would all claim release! And as that which is duty
in others, in such cases, is a right in them, not to grant them
release would certainly be a denial of their just rights! Is this the
sense in which Dr. Wayland would have us understand the Saviour of
mankind? Certain it is, that this is the only sense in which his words
can be understood so as to involve the necessary abolition of slavery!
We cheerfully acquit Dr. W. from the purpose to teach any such
agrarian folly. Still, we can see no good reason why one so eminent,
as a Christian and a scholar, should permit even an early prejudice as
to a practical question, about which he allows that he is uninformed,
to betray him into such views of a plain principle as logically
involve him in the grossest absurdities.
That the second sense given is the proper one in which to understand
the Saviour’s doctrine can admit of no dispute. What we should have a
_right to claim_, if we were in the circumstances of a slave, is
precisely that which we are to accord to such slave, according to the
precept of the Saviour. If we should have a right to claim political
sovereignty, in those circumstances, we are bound to allow them such
sovereignty, that is, release them from slavery. This directly
involves the question, Whether they are fitted for that
self-government which is involved in such sovereignty? That they are
not so in virtue of their humanity merely, we have proved; and whether
they are so or not, by acquirement, is a practical question which Dr.
Wayland allows that he is not competent to decide. This question will
be met in another place. It is sufficient here to state, that the
scripture so confidently relied on as repudiating the principle of
slavery, is found not to reach the question of the principle at all,
and, therefore, is wholly misapplied.
The patriarchal form of government, which existed before the
theocracy of the Jews, constituted the patriarch (he being the head of
the family) the owner of slaves. Abraham, Lot, and others, held them
in large numbers. These men enjoyed the unqualified approbation of
Jehovah, and in their character of slaveholders, no less than in many
other respects. According to Dr. W., they enjoyed the Divine
approbation in the practice of iniquity; for he says, the Bible
condemns both the _principle_ and the _practice_ of slavery!
It is evident that the Jews brought slaves with them from Egypt; for
the terms of the Decalogue not only imply that they were familiar with
domestic slavery, but also that it was, at that time, an existing
practice among them. But more than this, the Decalogue is strictly the
constitution which Jehovah himself gave to the Jewish nation. Now to
assume that he provided in this constitution to protect in all time to
come (for it is allowed to embody immutable principles) a relation
which was, in itself, _an iniquity_, is more than a mere
absurdity--_it is profanity_. And it is certain that the tenth article
of this constitution provides to protect the right of property in
slaves: “_Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s_ MAN-SERVANT, _nor his_
MAID-SERVANT, _nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s_.”
The Saviour has recognized this law, as it was originally designed to
be, of universal obligation and force: “_Think not that I am come to
destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfil_.” Matt. v. 17.
In accordance with this fundamental law of the nation, God proceeded
to provide in their civil institutions for the operation of a regular
system of domestic slavery. Under these institutions, a Hebrew might
lose his liberty and become a domestic slave, in six different ways.
(See A. Clarke, on Ex. xxi.)
1. In extreme poverty, he might sell his liberty. Lev. xxv. 39: “_If
thy brother be waxed poor and be sold unto thee_.”
2. A father might sell his child. Ex. xxi. 7: “_If a man sell his
daughter to be a maid-servant_.”
3. Insolvent debtors became the slaves of their creditors. 2 Kings iv.
1: “_My husband is dead, and the creditor is come to take unto him my
two sons to be bondsmen_.” Also, Matt. xviii. 25.
4. A thief, if he had not money to pay the fine laid on him by the
law, was to be sold for his profit whom he had robbed. Ex. xxii. 3:
“_If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for the theft_.”
5. A Hebrew was liable to be taken in war, and sold for a slave. 2
Chron. xii. 8.
6. A Hebrew slave who had been ransomed from a Gentile by a Hebrew,
might be sold by him who ransomed him to one of his own nation.
All who became slaves under this system were emancipated in the
seventh year, except those who should refuse to accept liberty. Ex.
xxi. 2-6. They were emancipated in the year of jubilee.
But then, the law further provided for domestic slaves _in
perpetuity_.
“Both thy bondmen 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 ye buy, and of 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 for ever; but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye
shall not rule over one another with rigor.” Lev. xxv. 44-46.
The attempts which are sometimes made to prove that δοῦλος, of the
Septuagint, and _servus_, of the Vulgate version, translated
indifferently _servant_ or slave, means only a _hired servant_, need
only to be mentioned to be refuted. That these terms defined an actual
state of slavery among the Greeks and Romans, no one acquainted with
the facts will deny. But whatever might be their original meaning,
they are to be understood, as Bible terms, in the sense of the
original Hebrew, which they are employed to express. Now, nothing is
more certain than this, that the Hebrew Bible (and the same is true of
the English translation) speaks of _servants_, _hired_ servants, and
_bond_ servants. The term servant is the generic form, and evidently
means, a person who is controlled by the will of another: _hired_
servant is one who serves in that way by contract for a definite
period; whilst _bond_ servant is one who has either contracted to do
so through his whole life, or who, by the usages of war, or by
inheritance, or by purchase from another, was so bound to
service--(such as Paul calls a “servant under the yoke.” 2 Tim. vi.
1.) These different relations are distinctly marked by the use of
these terms in the Bible, and especially the meaning of BOND SERVANT,
in distinction from a HIRED SERVANT: “_If thy brother that dwelleth by
thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shall not compel him
to serve as a_ BOND SERVANT, _but as a_ HIRED SERVANT, _and as a
sojourner, shall he be_.” Lev. XXV. 39, 40.
Thus we find that the Jewish constitution provided to protect the
right of property in servants or slaves in the generic sense: that is,
whether in the one form or the other; and that He who gave them their
civil institutions, also provided under their constitution for the
organization of a regular system of domestic slavery, in two distinct
forms: the _one_, the enslavement, in the true generic sense, of
Hebrews in given circumstances, for a definite period; and the
_other_, the enslavement, in the same sense, of the neighboring
heathen, _in perpetuity_.
Such was the legal origin of domestic slavery among the Jews. During
all the calamities that have befallen that people, this constitution
and these laws have known neither repeal nor modification. At no
period of their history were they without domestic slaves; and when
the Saviour dwelt among them, the whole land was filled with such
slaves. No State in this Union can with more propriety be regarded a
slaveholding community, than was that of the Jewish people in the days
of the Saviour. In every congregation which he addressed, bond slaves
may have mingled. The hospitalities of every family of which he
partook, were probably ministered to him, more or less, by domestic
slaves. And in all this time, and under all these circumstances, not a
word is known to have escaped him, either in public or in private,
declaring the relation of master and slave to be sinful! But, on the
contrary, Paul’s denunciation--1 Tim. vi. 3--of the teachers of
abolition doctrines, that they “_consent not to wholesome words, even
the words of our Lord Jesus Christ_,” is sufficient reason to believe
that he was always understood to approve of the relation, and to
condemn in express terms all attempts to abolish it as a duty of the
religion which he taught. And certain it is, that this relation is
made the subject of some of his most eloquent allusions, and the basis
of some of his most instructive parables: “One is your Master, even
Christ,” Matt. xxiii. 10: “Good Master, what shall I do?” Mark x. 17:
“No man can serve two masters,” Matt. vi. 24--are specimens of the
former; whilst the parable, Matt. xiii. 24-28, “And the servants said,
Wilt thou that we go and gather them up?”--of the vineyard, Matt.
xxi.; of the talents, Matt. xxv.; and others of a similar nature, are
striking examples of the latter. And yet, young gentlemen, the author
of your text says, the doctrines of the Bible, and especially the
teachings of the Saviour, are “diametrically opposed to both the
principle and the practice of domestic slavery.” If this be true, it
is really passing strange that Jehovah himself should provide, in the
organic law of the Jewish commonwealth, for the working of a system of
domestic slavery, and, by a series of laws drawn up under this
constitution, set such a system in actual operation; and that the
Saviour of mankind should also give, according to every legitimate
interpretation that can be put, either upon his language or his
conduct, his unqualified approbation to that which was so flatly
opposed to all his doctrines! It is saying but little of all this to
affirm that it is grossly absurd! It can appeal to no doctrine that we
are aware of for its defence, unless it be the kindred absurdity that
the _will of God_ is not the rule of right, in this sense, that it
always conforms to that which, _in itself, is right_, i. e., good; but
that it is the rule of right in this other sense, that it is
absolutely, in itself, the only rule of right; and that, in the case
under consideration, domestic slavery was right for the Jews, because
God so willed it, but the same thing in principle, and under similar
circumstances, would be wrong for any other people, because in regard
to them God had willed differently: thus assigning to Deity the power
to make _the wrong the right, and the right the wrong_! We regret to
know that this absurd view of the Divine volitions has found its way
beyond the pages of Dr. Paley. It is countenanced by some writers of
eminent distinction in theology. But to give it a definite application
in any case, is all that is required for its entire refutation. We
rely with confidence on the conclusion that what God thus provided for
in the Jewish constitution, was right in principle in itself, and
that, under the circumstances of the Jewish people, it was right in
practice.
Among the strange, if not wholly unaccountable, misconceptions, if not
gross misrepresentations, of the fundamental ideas of domestic
slavery, we may place those of Dr. Channing and Prof. Whewell. The
latter, in his “Elements of Morality,” states that “slavery converts a
person into a thing--a subject merely passive, without any of the
recognized attributes of human nature.” “A slave,” he further says,
“in the eye of the law which stamps him with that character, is not
acknowledged as a man. He is reduced to the level of a brute;” that
is, as he explains it, “he is divested of his moral nature.”
Dr. Channing, the great apostle of Unitarianism in America, says, “The
very idea of a slave is that he belongs to another: that he is bound
to live and labor for another; to be another’s instrument, that is, in
all things, just as a threshing-machine, or another beast of burden;
and to make another’s will his habitual law, however adverse to his
own.” He adds, in another place, “We have thus established the reality
and sacredness of human rights; and that slavery is an infraction of
these, is too plain to need any labored proof. Slavery violates not
one, but all; violates them not incidentally, but necessarily,
systematically, from its very nature.”
These, together with your text, young gentlemen, are leading
authorities on this subject. Following these, we should adopt the
belief that the principle of slavery in question is, as they express
it, “an absorption of the humanity of one man into the will of
another;” or, in other words, that “slavery contemplates him, not as a
responsible, but a mere sentient being--not as a man, but a brute.”
If this be so, the wonder is not, as they affirm, that the civilized
world is so indignant at its outrageous wrongs, but that “it has been
so slow in detecting its gross and palpable enormities: that mankind,
for so many ages, acquiesced in a system as monstrously unnatural as
would be a general effort to walk upon the head or to think with the
feet!” We need have no hesitation in flatly denying the truth of this
description, and pronouncing it a caricature. For if this be a
faithful description, we can safely affirm that no instance of slavery
ever existed under the authority of law in any nation known to
history.
In the first place, the state of things so rhetorically described is a
palpable impossibility. The constitution of the human mind is in flat
contradiction to the idea of the absorption of the will, the
conscience, and the understanding of one man into the personality of
another! This is a state of things which the human mind cannot even
conceive to be possible, but does intuitively perceive to be utterly
impossible. In the next place, we affirm that the idea of _personal
rights_ and _personal responsibility_ pervades the whole system. Both
the Divine and human laws which recognize the system assume the
personality and responsibility of the slave. Even under the Roman and
Grecian codes--which recognized far more stringent forms of slavery
than that of the African in this country, at any period of its
history--this view of the system will find no support. Paul and Peter,
who wrote with special allusion to slaves under these laws, so far
from regarding this personality as lost and swallowed up in the
humanity of the master, expressly assumed their personality and
responsibility. For whilst they _recognize him as a servant_, they
treat him as a man: they declare him possessed, though a slave, of
certain rights, which it was injustice in the master to disregard, and
under obligation to certain duties, as a slave, which it would be
sinful in him to neglect; and, moreover, that it was the office of
that religion whose functions they filled, to protect these rights and
duties with its most solemn sanctions. Hence they enjoin upon masters
the moral obligation of rendering to their bondmen “_that which is
just and equal_,” and upon servants to “_be subject to their 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 wrongfully._” Was this treating them as
beings whose wills were absorbed in the humanity of the master, who
therefore was the only accountable person for all their conduct!
Nothing could be more alien from truth, and significant of falsehood!
No: obedience is never applied, except as a figurative term, and
especially by the apostles, to any but rational and accountable
beings. And with such inspired requisitions before us--“_obedience
from the one, and justice from the other_”--it is grossly absurd to
affirm that the relation of master and slave regards the slave as a
brute, and not as an accountable man. “The blind passivity of a
corpse, or the mechanical obedience of a tool,” which Channing and
Whewell regard as constituting the essential idea of slavery, seems
never to have entered the minds of the apostles. They considered
slavery as a social and political economy, in which relations
involving reciprocal rights and duties subsisted, between moral,
intelligent, and responsible beings, between whom, as between men in
other relations, religion held the scales of justice.
The right of property in man, as man, is nowhere taught in Scripture,
although it distinctly recognizes the relation of master and slave.
The right which the master has in the slave, according to the
Scriptures, is, _not to the man_, but to so much of his time and labor
as is consistent with his rights of humanity. The master who
disregards these claims, denies his slave that which is “just and
equal.” The duty which the slave owes, is the service which, in
conformity with these rights, the master exacts. A failure in either
party is a breach of Scripture.
The only difference between free and slave labor is, that the one is
rendered in consequence of a contract, and the other in consequence of
a command. Each is service rendered according to the will of another;
and each may, or may not, be according to the consent of the party
rendering service. The former is often as _involuntary_, in point of
fact, as the latter. Hirelings _assent_ to it, in most cases, as a
necessity of their condition. They do not _consent_ to it--they are
far from choosing it. A few persons reach that high attainment of a
pure Christianity, in which they learn in every state in which they
are placed, in the providence of God, “therewith to be content”--they
choose it. But in the general, hired service is, in point of fact, as
involuntary as slave labor.
A right, therefore, to the time and labor of another to a definite
extent, by no means involves the right to his humanity. Such right is
a mere fiction, to which even the imagination can give no significance
or consistency. “It is the miserable cant of those who would storm by
prejudice what they cannot demolish by argument.”
Thus, young gentlemen, that the abstract principle of the institution
of slavery, and the principles of natural rights, coincide, and that
both have the unqualified approbation of Holy Scripture, cannot be
successfully controverted. Natural rights and the principle of slavery
do not conflict. No man has a natural right to do wrong. That wherein
the principle of slavery is in itself _right_, is that, when carried
out in the form of civil government, it furnishes an instance in which
the subjects of government who are liable to injure society by doing
wrong, are placed under such disabilities, or in such circumstances,
in which they cannot or are not likely to do this wrong, but to do
that which they have a natural right to do, that is, do good. In all
cases in which this principle enters into the government in such ratio
or modification as to secure these ends, it coincides with natural
rights, and insures to the subject the highest amount of freedom of
which his moral condition will admit; it is to him essentially a free
government, although, in adapting itself to his moral condition, it
may assume an extreme form of despotism.
Whether the Southern States of this Union have wisely adapted this
principle to the moral condition of the African population residing
within their borders, and thereby secured to them an essentially free
government, remains to be considered.