Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments Part 42

No political objection existed at the time against their obedience to him on the subject of slavery; and what is the will, not of Paul, but of the Lord Jesus Christ, immediately in person, upon the case thus made out? Does he say to the master, having put yourself under my government, you must no longer hold your brother in bondage? Does he say to the slave, if your master does not release you, you must go and talk to him privately, about this trespa.s.s upon your rights under the law of my kingdom; and if he does not hear you, you must take two or three with you; and if he does not hear them then you must tell it to the church, and have him expelled from my flock, as a wolf in sheep's clothing? I say, what does the Lord Jesus say to this poor believing slave, concerning a master who held unlimited power over his person and life, under the Roman law? He tells him that the very circ.u.mstance of his master's being a brother, const.i.tutes the reason why he should be more ready to do him service; for in addition to the circ.u.mstance of his being a brother who would be benefited by his service, he would as a brother give him what was just and equal in return, and "forbear threatening," much less abusing his authority over him, for that he (the master) also had a master in heaven, who was no respecter of persons. It is taken for granted, on all hands pretty generally, that Jesus Christ has at least been silent, or that he has not personally spoken on the subject of slavery. Once for all, I deny it. Paul, after stating that a slave was to honor an unbelieving master, in the 1st verse of the 6th chapter, says, in the 2d verse, that to a believing master, he is the rather to do service, because he who partakes of the benefit is his brother. He then says, if any man teach otherwise, (as all abolitionists then did, and now do,) and consent not to wholesome words, "even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ." Now, if our Lord Jesus Christ uttered such words, how dare we say he has been silent? If he has been silent, how dare the Apostle say these are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, if the Lord Jesus Christ never spoke them? "Where, or when, or on what occasion he spoke them, we are not informed; but certain it is, that Paul has borne false witness, or that Jesus Christ has uttered the words that impose an obligation on servants, who are abject slaves, to render service with good-will from the heart, to believing masters, and to account their unbelieving masters as worthy of all honor, that the name of G.o.d and his doctrine be not blasphemed. Jesus Christ revealed to Paul the doctrine which Paul has settled throughout the Gentile world, (and by consequence, the Jewish world also,) on the subject of slavery, so far as it affects his kingdom. As we have seen, it is clear and full.

From the great importance of the subject, involving the personal liberty of half the human race at that time, and a large portion of them at all times since, it is not to be wondered at, that Paul would carry the question to the Saviour, and plead for a decisive expression of his will, that would forever do away the necessity of inferring any thing by reasoning from the premises laid down in the former dispensation; or in the patriarchal age; and at Ephesus, if not at Crete, the issue is fairly made, between Paul on the one side, and certain abolition teachers on the other, when, in addition to the official intelligence ordinarily given to the apostles by the Holy Ghost, to guide them into all truth, he affirms, that the doctrine of perfect civil subordination, on the part of hereditary slaves to their masters, whether believers or unbelievers, was one which he, Paul, taught in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

The Scriptures we have adduced from the New Testament, to prove the recognition of hereditary slavery by the Saviour, as a lawful relation in the sight of G.o.d, lose much of their force from the use of a word by the translators, which by time, has lost much of its original meaning; that is, the word _servant_. Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary, says: "Servant is one of the few words, which by time has acquired a softer signification than its original, knave, degenerated into cheat. While _servant_, which signified originally, a person preserved from death by the conqueror, and reserved for slavery, signifies only an obedient attendant." Now, all history will prove that the servants of the New Testament addressed by the apostles, in their letters to the several churches throughout the Roman Empire, were such as were perserved from death by the conqueror, and taken into slavery. This was their condition, and it is a fact well known to all men acquainted with history. Had the word which designates their condition, in our translation, lost none of its original meaning, a common man could not have fallen into a mistake as to the condition indicated. But to waive this fact we are furnished with all the evidence that can be desired.

The Saviour appeared in an age of learning--the enslaved condition of half the Roman Empire, at the time, is a fact embodied with all the historical records--the const.i.tution G.o.d gave the Jews, was in harmony with the Roman regulations on the subject of slavery. In this state of things, Jesus ordered his gospel to be preached in all the world, and to every creature. It was done as he directed; and masters and servants, and persons in all conditions, were brought by the gospel to obey the Saviour. Churches were const.i.tuted. We have examined the letters written to the churches, composd of these materials. The result is, that each member is furnished with a law to regulate the duties of his civil station--from the highest to the lowest.

We will remark, in closing under this head, that we have shown from the text of the sacred volume, that when G.o.d entered into covenant with Abraham, it was with him as a slaveholder; that when he took his posterity by the hand in Egypt, five hundred years afterward to confirm the promise made to Abraham, it was done with them as slaveholders; that when he gave them a const.i.tution of government, he gave them the right to perpetuate hereditary slavery; and that he did not for the fifteen hundred years of their national existence, express disapprobation toward the inst.i.tution.

We have also shown from authentic history that the inst.i.tution of slavery existed in every family, and in every province of the Roman Empire, at the time the gospel was published to them.

We have also shown from the New Testament, that all the churches are recognized as composed of masters and servants; and that they are instructed by Christ how to discharge their relative duties; and finally that in reference to the question which was then started, whether Christianity did not abolish the inst.i.tution, or the right of one Christian to hold another Christian in bondage, we have shown, that "the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" are, that so far from this being the case, it adds to the obligation of the servant to render service with good-will to his master, and that gospel fellowship is not to be entertained with persons who will not consent to it!

I propose, in the fourth place, to show that the inst.i.tution of slavery is full of mercy. I shall say but a few words on this subject. Authentic history warrants this conclusion, that for a long period of time, it was this inst.i.tution alone which furnished a motive for sparing the prisoner's life. The chances of war, when the earth was filled with small tribes of men, who had a pa.s.sion for it, brought to decision, almost daily, conflicts, where nothing but this inst.i.tution interposed an inducement to save the vanquished. The same was true in the enlarged schemes of conquest, which brought the four great universal empires of the Scriptures to the zenith of their power.

The same is true in the history of Africa, as far back as we can trace it. It is only sober truth to say, that the inst.i.tution of slavery has saved from the sword more lives, including their increase, than all the souls who now inhabit this globe.

The souls thus conquered and subjected to masters, who feared not G.o.d nor regarded men, in the days of Abraham, Job, and the patriarchs, were surely brought under great obligations to the mercy of G.o.d, in allowing such men as these to purchase them, and keep them in their families.

The inst.i.tution when engrafted on the Jewish const.i.tution, was designed princ.i.p.ally, not to enlarge the number, but to ameliorate the condition of the slaves in the neighboring nations.

Under the gospel, it has brought within the range of gospel influence, millions of Ham's descendant's among ourselves, who but for this inst.i.tution, would have sunk down to eternal ruin; knowing not G.o.d, and strangers to the gospel. In their bondage here on earth, they have been much better provided for, and great mult.i.tudes of them have been made the freemen of the Lord Jesus Christ, and left this world rejoicing in hope of the glory of G.o.d. The elements of an empire, which I hope will lead Ethiopia very soon to stretch out her hands to G.o.d, is the fruit of the inst.i.tution here. An officious meddling with the inst.i.tution, from feeling and sentiments unknown to the Bible, may lead to the extermination of the slave race among us, who, taken as a whole, are utterly unprepared for a higher civil state; but benefit them, it cannot. Their condition, _as a cla.s.s_, is now better than that of any other equal number of laborers on earth, and is daily improving.

If the Bible is allowed to awaken the spirit, and control the philanthropy which works their good, the day is not far distant when the highest wishes of saints will be gratified, in having conferred on them all that the spirit of good-will can bestow. This spirit which was kindling into life, has received a great check among us of late, by that trait which the Apostle Peter reproves and shames in his officious countrymen, when he says: "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil doer, or as a busy-body in other men's matters." Our citizens have been murdered--our property has been stolen, (if the receiver is as bad as the thief,)--our lives have been put in jeopardy--our characters traduced--and attempts made to force political slavery upon us in the place of domestic, by strangers who have no right to meddle with our matters. Instead of meditating generous things to our slaves, as a return for gospel subordination, we have to put on our armor to suppress a rebellious spirit, engendered by "false doctrine,"

propagated by men "of corrupt minds, and dest.i.tute of the truth," who teach them that the gain of freedom to the slave, is the only proof of G.o.dliness in the master. From such, Paul says we must withdraw ourselves; and if we fail to do it, and to rebuke them with all the authority which "the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" confer, we shall be wanting in duty to them, to ourselves, and to the world.

THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.

FOOTNOTE:

[229] The property in slaves in the United States is their _service or labor_. The Const.i.tution guarantees this property to its owner, both in apprentices and slaves. And the Supreme Court has decided, Judge Baldwin presiding, that all the means "necessary and proper" to secure this property, may be const.i.tutionally used by the master, in the absence of all statute law. The Roman law made the slave of that law, to be, not a _personal chattel_, held to service or labor only, as is the American apprentice or slave, but to be a _mere thing_; and guaranteed to the master the right to do with that _mere thing_, just as he pleased. To cut it up, for instance, as the master sometimes did, to feed fishes.

Abolitionists are guilty of the inexcusable wickedness of holding up this ancient Roman slavery, as a model of American slavery; although they know that the personal rights of apprentices and slaves, are as well defined and secured, by judicial decisions and statute laws, as the rights of husband and wife, parent and child.

AN EXAMINATION

OF ELDER GALUSHA'S REPLY TO DR. RICHARD FULLER OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

AFTER my essay on slavery was published in the _Herald_,[230] I sent a copy of it to a prominent abolition gentleman in New York, accompanied by a friendly letter.

This gentleman I selected as a correspondent, because of his high standing, intellectual attainments, and unquestioned piety. I frankly avowed to him my readiness to abandon slavery, so soon as I was convinced by the Bible that it was sinful, and requested him, "if the Bible contained precepts, and settled principles of conduct, in direct opposition to those portions of it upon which I relied, as furnishing the mind of the Almighty upon the subject of slavery, that he would furnish me with the knowledge of the fact." To this letter I received a friendly reply, accompanied by a printed communication containing the result of a prayerful effort which he had previously made, for the purpose of furnishing the very information to a friend at the South, which I sought to obtain at his hands.

It may be owing to my prejudices, or a want of intellect, that I fail to be convinced, by those portions of the Bible to which he refers, to prove that slavery is sinful. But as the support of truth is _my object_, and as I wish to have the answer of a good conscience toward G.o.d in this matter, I herewith publish, for the information of all into whose hands my first essay may have fallen, every pa.s.sage in the Bible to which this distinguished brother refers me for "precepts and settled principles of conduct, in direct opposition to those portions of it upon which I relied, as furnishing the mind of the Almighty upon the subject of slavery."

1st. His reference to the sacred volume is this: "G.o.d hath made of one blood all nations of men." This is a Scripture truth which I believe; yet G.o.d decreed that Canaan should be a servant of servants to his brother--that is, an abject slave in his posterity. This G.o.d effected eight hundred years afterward, in the days of Joshua, when the Gibeonites were subjected to prepetual bondage, and made hewers of wood and drawers of water.--Joshua ix: 23.

Again, G.o.d ordained, as law-giver to Israel, that their captives taken in war should be enslaved.--Deut. xx: 10 to 15.

Again, G.o.d enacted that the Israelites should buy slaves of the heathen nations around them, and will them and their increase as property to their children forever.--Levit. xxv: 44, 45, 46. All these nations were _made of one blood_. Yet G.o.d ordained that some should be "chattel"

slaves to others, and gave his special aid to effect it. In view of this incontrovertible fact, how can I believe this pa.s.sage disproves the lawfulness of slavery in the sight of G.o.d? How can any sane man believe it, who believes the Bible?

2d. His second Scripture reference to disprove the lawfulness of slavery in the sight of G.o.d, is this: "G.o.d has said a man is better than a sheep." This is a Scripture truth which I fully believe--and I have no doubt, if we could ascertain what the Israelites had to pay for those slaves they bought with their money according to G.o.d's law, in Levit.

xxv: 44, that we should find they had to pay more for them than they paid for sheep, for the reason a.s.signed by the Saviour; that is, that a servant man is better than a sheep; for when he is done plowing, or feeding cattle, and comes in from the field, he will, at his master's bidding, prepare him his meal, and wait upon him till he eats it, while the master feels under no obligation even to thank him for it because he has done no more than his duty.--Luke xvii: 7, 8, 9. This, and other important duties, which the people of G.o.d bought their slaves to perform for them, by the permission of their Maker, were duties which sheep could not perform. But I cannot see what there is in it to blot out from the Bible a relation which G.o.d created, in which he made one man to be a slave to another.

3d. His third Scripture reference to prove the unlawfulness of slavery in the sight of G.o.d, is this: "G.o.d commands children to obey their parents, and wives to obey their husbands." This, I believe to be the will of Christ to Christian children and Christian wives--whether they are bond or free. But it is equally true that Christ ordains that Christianity shall not abolish slavery.--1 Cor. vii: 17, 21, and that he commands servants to obey their masters and to count them worthy of all honor.--1 Tim. vi: 1, 2. It is also true, that G.o.d allowed Jewish masters to use the rod to make them do it--and to use it with the severity requisite to accomplish the object.--Exod. xxi: 20,21. It is equally true, that Jesus Christ ordains that a Christian servant shall receive for the wrong he hath done.--Col. iii: 25. My correspondent admits, without qualification, that if they are property, it is right.

But the Bible says, they were property.--Levit. xxv: 44, 45, 46.

The above reference, reader, _enjoins_ the _duty_ of two _relations_, which G.o.d ordained, but does not _abolish_ a third _relation_ which _G.o.d has ordained_; as the Scripture will prove, to which I have referred you, under the first reference made by my correspondent.

4th. His fourth Scripture reference is, to the _intention_ of Abraham to give his estate to a servant, in order to prove that servant was not a slave. "What," he says, "property inherit property?" I answer, yes. Two years ago, in my county, William Hansbrough gave to his slaves his estate, worth forty or fifty thousand dollars. In the last five or six years, over two hundred slaves, within a few miles of me, belonging to various masters, have inherited portions of their masters' estates.

To render slaves valuable, the Romans qualified them for the learned professions, and all the various arts. They were teachers, doctors, authors, mechanics, etc. So with us, tradesmen of every kind are to be found among our slaves. Some of them are undertakers--some farmers--some overseers, or stewards--some housekeepers--some merchants--some teamsters, and some money-lenders, who give their masters a portion of their income, and keep the balance. Nearly all of them have an income of their own--and was it not for the seditious spirit of the North, we would educate our slaves generally, and so fit them earlier for a more improved condition, and higher moral elevation.

But will all this, when duly certified, prove they are not slaves? No.

Neither will Abraham's _intention_ to give one of his servants his estate, prove that he was not a slave. Who had higher claims upon Abraham, before he had a child, than this faithful slave, born in his house, reared by his hand, devoted to his interest, and faithful in every trust?

5th. His fifth reference, my correspondent says, "forever sets the question at rest." It is this: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master, the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee--he shall dwell with thee, even in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him."

This my distinguished correspondent says, "forever puts the question at rest." My reader, I hope, will ask himself what question it puts to rest. He will please to remember, that it is brought to put this question to rest, "Is slavery sinful in the sight of G.o.d?" the Bible being judge--or "did G.o.d ever allow one man to hold property in another?"

My correspondent admits this to be the question at issue. He asks, "What is slavery?" And thus answers: "It is the principle involved in holding man as property." "This," he says: "is the point at issue." He says, "if it be right to hold man as property, it is right to treat him as property," etc. Now, conceding all in the argument, that can be demanded for this law about run-away slaves, yet it does not prove that slavery or holding property in man is sinful--because it is a part and parcel of the Mosaic law, given to Israel in the wilderness by the same G.o.d, who in the same wilderness enacted "that of the heathen that were round about them, they should buy bond-men and bond-women--also of the strangers that dwelt among them should they buy, and they should pa.s.s as an inheritance to their children after them, to possess them as bond-men forever."--Levit. xxv: 44.

How can I admit that a prohibition to deliver up a run-away slave, under the law of Moses, is proof that there was no slavery allowed under that law? Here is the law from G.o.d himself,--Levit. xxv: 44, authorizing the Israelites to buy slaves and transmit them and their increase as a possession to their posterity forever--and to make slaves of their captives taken in war.--Deut. xx: 10-15. Suppose, for argument's sake, I admit that G.o.d prohibited the delivery back of one of _these slaves_, when he fled from his master--would that prove that he was not a slave before he fled? Would that prove that he did not remain legally a slave in the sight of G.o.d, according to his own law, until he fled? The pa.s.sage proves the very reverse of that which it is brought to prove. It proves that the slave is recognized by G.o.d himself as a slave, until he fled to the Israelites. My correspondent's exposition of this law seems based upon the idea that G.o.d, who had held fellowship with slavery among his people for five hundred years, and who had just given them a formal statute to legalize the purchase of slaves from the heathen, and to enslave their captives taken in war, was, nevertheless, desirous to abolish the inst.i.tution. But, as if afraid to march directly up to his object, he was disposed to undermine what he was unwilling to attempt to overthrow.

Upon the principle that man is p.r.o.ne to think G.o.d is altogether such an one as himself, we may account for such an interpretation at the present time, by men north of Mason & Dixon's line. Our brethren there have held fellowship with this inst.i.tution, by the const.i.tutional oath they have taken to protect us in this property. Unable, const.i.tutionally, to overthrow the inst.i.tution, they see, or think they see, a sanction in the law of G.o.d to undermine it, by opening their gates and letting our run-away slaves "dwell among them where it liketh them best." If I could be astonished at any thing in this controversy, it would be to see sensible men engaged in the study of that part of the Bible which relates to the rights of property, as established by the Almighty himself, giving in to the idea that the Judge of the world, acting in the character of a national law-giver, would legalize a property right in slaves, _as he did_--give full power to the master to govern--secure the increase as an inheritance to posterity for all time to come--and then add a clause to legalize a fraud upon the unsuspecting purchaser.

For what better is it, under this interpretation?

With respect to slaves purchased of the heathen, or enslaved by war, the law pa.s.sed a clear t.i.tle to them and their increase forever. With respect to the hired servants of the Hebrews, the law secured to the master a right to their service until the Sabbatic year or Jubilee--unless they were bought back by a near kinsman at a stated price in money when owned by a heathen master. But these legal rights, under these laws of heaven's King, by this interpretation, are all canceled--for the pecuniary loss, there is no redress--and for the insult no remedy, whenever a "liketh him best" man can induce the slave to run away. And worse still, the community of masters thus insulted and swindled, according to this interpretation, are bound to show respect and afford protection to the villains who practice it. Who can believe all this? I judge our Northern brethren will say, the Lord deliver us from such legislation as this. So say we. What, then, does this run-away law mean? It means that the G.o.d of Israel ordained his people to be an asylum for the slave who fled from heathen cruelty to them for protection; it is the law of nations--but surrendered under the Const.i.tution by these States, who agreed to deliver them up. See, says G.o.d, ye oppress not the stranger. Thou shalt neither _vex_ a stranger, nor _oppress_ him.--Exod. xxii: 21.

His 6th reference to the Bible is this: "Do to others as ye would they should do to you." I have shown in the essay, that these words of our Saviour, embody the same moral principle, which is embodied by Moses in Levit. xix: 18, in these words, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." In this we can not be mistaken, because Jesus says there are but two such principles in G.o.d's moral government--_one_ of supreme love of G.o.d--_another_ of love to our neighbor as ourself. To the everlasting confusion of the argument from moral precepts, to overthrow the positive inst.i.tution of slavery, this moral precept was given to regulate the mutual duties of this very relation, which G.o.d by law ordained for the Jewish commonwealth.

How can that which regulates the _duty_, overthrow the _relation_ itself?

His 7th reference is, "They which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them, but so it shall not be among you."

Turn to the pa.s.sage, reader, in Mark x: 42; and try your ingenuity at expounding, and see if you can destroy one _relation_ that has been created among men, because the _authority_ given in another relation was _abused_. The Saviour refers to the _abuse_ of State _authority_, as a warning to those who should be clothed with _authority_ in his kingdom, not to _abuse_ it, but to connect the use of it with humility. But how official humility in the kingdom of Christ, is to rob States of the right to make their own laws, dissolve the relation of slavery recognized by the Saviour as a lawful relation, and overthrow the right of property in slaves as settled by G.o.d himself, I know not. Paul, in drawing the character of those who oppose slavery, in his letter to Timothy, says, (vi: 4,) they are "proud, knowing nothing;" he means, that they were puffed with a conceit of their superior sanct.i.ty, while they were deplorably ignorant of the will of Christ on this subject. Is it not great pride that leads a man to think he is better than the Saviour? Jesus held fellowship with, and enjoined subjection to governments, which sanctioned slavery in its worst form--but abolitionists refuse fellowship for governments which have mitigated all its rigors.

G.o.d established the relation by law, and bestowed the highest manifestations of his favor upon slaveholders; and has caused it to be written as with a sunbeam in the Scriptures. Yet such saints would be refused the ordinary tokens of Christian fellowship among abolitionists.

If Abraham were on earth, they could not let him, consistently, occupy their pulpits, to tell of the things G.o.d has prepared for them that love him. Job himself would be unfit for their communion. Joseph would be placed on a level with pirates. Not a single church planted by the apostles would make a fit home for our abolition brethren, (for they all had masters and slaves.) The apostles and their ministerial a.s.sociates could not occupy their pulpits, for they fraternized with slavery, and upheld State authority upon the subject. Now, I ask, with due respect for all parties, can sentiments which lead to such results as these be held by any man, _in the absence of pride_ of no ordinary character, whether he be sensible of it or not?

Again, whatever of intellect we may have--can that something which prompts to results like these be _Bible knowledge_?

Reference the 8th is favorable in _sound_ if not in _sense_. It is in these words, "Neither be ye called _masters_, for one is your _master_, even Christ." I am free to confess, it is difficult to repress the spirit which the prophet felt when he witnessed the zeal of his deluded countrymen, at Mount Carmel. I think a sensible man ought to know better, than to refer me to such a pa.s.sage, to prove slavery unlawful; yet my correspondent is a sensible man. However, I will balance it by an equal authority, for dissolving another relation. "Call no man _father_ upon earth, for one is your _father_ in heaven."

When the last abolishes the _relation_ between _parent and child_, the first will abolish the _relation_ between _master and servant_.