Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments Part 43

The 9th reference to prove slavery unlawful in the sight of G.o.d, is this: "He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Wonderful!

I suppose that no State has ever established domestic slavery, which did not find such a law necessary. It is this inst.i.tution which makes such a law needful. Unless slavery exists, there would be no motive to steal a man. And, the danger is greater in a slave State than a free one.

Virginia has such a law, and so have all the States of North America.

Will these laws prove four thousand years hence that slavery did not exist in the United States? No--but why not! Because the statute will still exist, which authorizes us to buy bond-men and bond-women with our money, and give them and their increase as an inheritance to our children, forever. So the Mosaic statute still exists, which authorized the Jews to do the same thing, and G.o.d is its author.

Reference the 10th is: "Rob not the poor because he is poor. Let the oppressed go free; break every yoke; deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor. What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with thy G.o.d. He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker." This _sounds_ very well, reader, yet I propose to make every man who reads me, _confess_, that these Scriptures will not condemn slavery. Answer me this question: Are these, and such like pa.s.sages, in the Old Testament, from whence they are all taken, intended to reprove and condemn that people, for doing what G.o.d, in his law gave them a right to do? I know you must answer, they were not; consequently, you confess they do not condemn slavery; because G.o.d gave them the right, by law, to purchase slaves of the heathen.--Levit. xxv: 44. And to make slaves of their captives taken in war.--Deut. xx: 14.

The moral precepts of the Old or New Testament cannot make that wrong which G.o.d ordained to be his will, as he has slavery.

The 11th reference of my distinguished correspondent to the sacred volume, to prove that slavery is contrary to the will of Jesus Christ and sinful, is in these words: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal." The argument of my correspondent is this, that slavery is a relation, in which rights based upon _justice_ cannot exist.

I answer, G.o.d ordained, after man sinned, that he, "should eat bread (that is, _have food and raiment_) in the sweat of his face."

He has since ordained, that some should be slaves to others, (as we have proved under the first reference.) _Therefore_, when food and raiment are withheld from him in slavery, it is _unjust_.

G.o.d has ordained food and raiment, as wages for the sweat of the face.

Christ has ordained that with these, whether in slavery or freedom, his disciples shall be content.

The relation of master and slave, says Gibbon, existed in every province and in every family of the Roman Empire. Jesus ordains in the 13th chapter of Romans, from the 1st to the end of the 7th verse, and in 1 Peter, 2d chapter, 13th, 14th, and 15th verses, that the _legislative authority_, which created the relation, should be obeyed and honored by his disciples. But while he thus _legalises_ the _relation_ of master and slave as established by the civil law, he proceeds to prescribe the mutual duties which the parties, when they come into his kingdom, must perform to each other.

The reference of my correspondent to disprove the _relation_, is a part of what Jesus has prescribed on this subject to _regulate_ the _duties_ of the relation, and is itself proof that the relation existed--that its legality was recognized--and its duties prescribed by the Son of G.o.d through the Holy Ghost given to the apostles.

The 12th reference is, "Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their masters worthy of all honor. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." If my reader will turn to my remarks, in my first essay upon this Scripture, he will cease to wonder that it fails to convince me that slavery is sinful. I should think the wonder would be, that any man ever quoted it for such a purpose.

And lastly. My correspondent informs me that the Greek word "d?????,"

translated servant, means hired servant and not slave.

I reply, that the primary meaning of this Greek word, is in a singular state of preservation. G.o.d, as if foreseeing and providing for this controversy, has caused, in his providence, that its meaning in Greek dictionaries shall be thus given, "the opposite of free." Now, readers, what is the _opposite_ of _free_? Is it a state somewhere _between_ freedom and slavery? If freedom, as a condition, has an opposite, that opposite state is indicated by this very word "d?????." So says every Greek lexicographer. I ask, if this is not wonderful, that the Holy Ghost has used a term, so incapable of deceiving, and yet that that term should be brought forward for the purpose of deception. Another remarkable fact is this: the English word servant, originally meant precisely the same thing as the Greek word "d?????;" that is, says Dr.

Johnson in his Dictionary, it meant formerly a captive taken in war, and reserved for slavery. These are two remarkable facts in the providence of G.o.d. But, reader, I will give you a Bible key, by which to decide for yourself, without foreign aid, whether _servant_, when it denotes a relation in society, where the other side of that relation is _master_, means _hired servant_. "Every man's servant that is bought for money shall eat thereof; but a hired servant shall not eat thereof."--Exod.

xii; 44, 45. Here are two cla.s.ses of servants alluded to--one was allowed to eat the Pa.s.sover the night Israel left Egypt; the other not.

What was the difference in these two cla.s.ses? Were they both hired servants? If so, it should read, "Every hired servant that is bought for money shall eat thereof; but a hired servant that is bought for money, shall not eat thereof." My reader, why has the Holy Ghost, in presiding over the inspired pen, been thus particular? Is it too much to say, it was to provide against the delusion of the nineteenth century, which learned men would be practicing upon unlearned men, as well as themselves, on the subject of slavery? Who, with the Bible and their learning, would not be able to discover, that a servant bought with money was a slave; and that a hired servant was a free man? Again, Levit. xxv: 44, 45, and 46; "Thy bond-servants shall be of the heathen that are round about you, and of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy. 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 bond-men forever."

Reader, were these hired servants? If so, they hired themselves for a long time. And what is very singular, they hired their posterity for all time to come. And what is still more singular, the wages were paid, not to the servant, but to a former owner or master. And what is still stranger, they hired themselves and their posterity to be an inheritance to their master and his posterity forever! Yet, reader, I am told by my distinguished correspondent, that servant in the Scriptures, when used to designate a relation, means only hired servant. Again, I ask, were the enslaved captives in Deut. xx: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, hired servants?

One of the greatest and best of men ever raised at the North, (I mean Luther Rice,) once told me when I quoted the law of G.o.d for the purchase of slaves from the heathen, (in order to silence his argument about "d?????," and hired servant,) I say he told me positively, there was no such law. When I opened the Bible and showed it to him, his shame was very visible. (And I hope he is not the only great and good man, that G.o.d will put to shame for being ignorant of his word.) But he never opened his mouth to me about slavery again while he lived.

If my reader does no _better_ than he did, at least let him not fight against G.o.d for establishing the inst.i.tution of "chattel" slavery in his kingdom, nor against me for believing he did do it. But, reader, if you have the hardihood to insist that these were hired servants, and not slaves after all, then, I answer, that ours are hired servants, too, and not slaves; and so the dispute ends favorably to the South, and it is lawful for us, according to abolition admissions, to hold them to servitude. For ours, we paid money to a former owner; so did the Jews for theirs. The increase of ours pa.s.ses as an inheritance to our children, so did the increase of the Jewish servants pa.s.s as an inheritance to their children, to be an inheritance forever. And all this took place by the direction of G.o.d to his chosen people.

My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jefferson, that Jehovah has no attributes that will harmonize with slavery; and that all men are born free and equal. Now, I say let him throw away his Bible as Mr. Jefferson did his, and then they will be fit companions. But never disgrace the Bible by making Mr. Jefferson its expounder, nor Mr. Jefferson by deriving his sentiments from it. Mr. Jefferson did not bow to the authority of the Bible, and on this subject I do not bow to him. How can any man, who believes the Bible, admit for a moment that G.o.d intended to teach mankind by the Bible, that all are born free and equal?

Men who engage in this controversy ought to look into the Bible, and see what is in it about slavery. I do not know how to account for such men saying, as my correspondent does, that the slave of the Mosaic law, purchased of the heathen, was a hired servant; and that both he and the Hebrew hired servant of the same law, had a pa.s.sport from G.o.d to run away from their masters with impunity, to prove which is the object of one of his quotations. Again, New Testament _servants_ and _masters_ are not the servants and masters of the Mosaic law, but the servants and masters of the Roman Empire. To go to the law of Moses to find out the statutes of the Roman Empire, is folly. Yet on this subject the difference is not great, and so far as humanity (in the abolition sense of it) is concerned, is in favor of the Roman law.

The laws of each made slaves to be property, and allowed them to be bought and sold. See Gibbon's Rome, vol. i: pp. 25, 26, and Levit. xxv: 44, 45, 46. The laws of each allowed prisoners taken in war to be enslaved. See Gibbon as above, and Deut. xx: 10-15. The difference was this: the Roman law allowed _men_ taken in battle to be enslaved--the Jewish law required the _men_ taken in battle to be put to death, and to enslave their wives and children. In the case of the Midianites, the mercy of enslaving some of the women was denied them because they had enticed the Israelites into sin, and subjected them to a heavy judgment under Balaam's counsel, and for a reason not a.s.signed, the mercy of slavery was denied to the male children in this special case. See Numbers x.x.xi: 15, 16, 17.

The first letter to Timothy, while at Ephesus, if rightly understood, would do much to stay the hands of men, who have more zeal than knowledge on this subject. See again what I have written in my first essay on this letter. In addition to what I have there said, I would state, that the "_other doctrine_," 1 Tim. i: 3, which Paul says, must not be taught, I take to be a principle tantamount to this, that Jesus Christ proposed to subordinate the civil to ecclesiastical authority.

The doctrine which was "_according to G.o.dliness_," 1 Tim, vi: 3, I take to be a principle which subordinated the church, or Christ in his members, to civil governments, or "the powers that be." One principle was seditious, and when consummated must end in the man of sin. The other principle was practically a quiet submission to government, as an ordinance of G.o.d in the hands of men.

The abolitionists, at Ephesus, in attempting to interfere with the relations of slavery, and to unsettle the rights of property, acted upon a principle, which statesmen must see, would in the end, subject the whole frame-work of government to the supervision of the church, and terminate in the man of sin, or a pretended successor of Christ, sitting in the temple of G.o.d, and claiming a right to reign over, and control the civil governments of the world. The Apostle, therefore, chapter ii: 1, to render the doctrine of subordination to the State a very prominent doctrine, and to cause the knowledge of it to spread among all who attended their worship, orders that the very first thing done by the church should be, that of making supplication, prayers, and intercessions, and giving G.o.d thanks for all men that were placed in authority, by the State, for the administration of civil government. He a.s.signs the reason for this injunction, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all G.o.dliness and honesty."

My correspondent complains, that abolitionists at the North are not safe when they come among us. They are much safer than the saints of Ephesus would have been in the Apostolic day, if Paul would have allowed the seditious doctrine to be propagated which our Northern brethren think it such a merit to preach, when it subjects them to no risk. How can they expect, in the nature of things, to lead a quiet and peaceable life when they come among us? They are _organized_ to overthrow our sovereignty--to put our lives in peril, and to trample upon Bible principles, by which the rights of property are to be settled.

Questions and strifes of words characterized the disputes of the abolitionists at Ephesus about slavery. It is amusing and painful to see the questions and strifes of words in the piece of my correspondent.

Many of these questions are about our property right in slaves. The _substance of them_ is this: that the present t.i.tle is not good, because the original t.i.tle grew out of violence and injustice. But, reader, our original t.i.tle was obtained in the same way which G.o.d in his law authorized his people to obtain theirs. They obtained their slaves by purchase of those who made them captives in the hazards of war, or by conquest with their own sword. My correspondent speaks at one time as if ours were stolen in the first instance; but, as if forgetting that, in another place he says, that so great is the hazard attending the wars of Africa, that one life is lost for every two that are taken captive and sold into slavery. If this is stealing, it has at least the merit of being more manly than some that is practiced among us.

A case seems to have been preserved by the Holy Ghost, as if to rebuke this abolition doctrine about property rights. It is the case of the King of Ammon, a heathen, on the one side, and Jephtha, who "obtained a good report by faith," on the other. It is consoling to us that we occupy the ground Jephtha did--and we may well suspect the correctness of the other side, because it is the ground occupied by Ammon. The case is this: A heathen is seen menacing Israel. Jephtha is selected by his countrymen to conduct the controversy. He sends a message to his menacing neighbor, to know why he had come out against him. He returned for answer, that it was because Israel held property to which they had no right. Jephtha answered, they had had it in possession for three hundred years. Ammon replied, they had no right to it, because it was obtained in the first instance by violence. Jephtha replied, that it was held by the same sort of a t.i.tle as that by which Ammon held his possessions--that is to say, whatever Ammon's G.o.d Chemosh enabled him to take in war, he considered to be his of right; and that Israel's G.o.d had a.s.sisted them to take this property, and they considered the t.i.tle to be such an one as Ammon was bound to acknowledge.

Ammon stickled for the _eternal_ principle of righteousness, and contended that it had been violated in the first instance. But, reader, in the appeal made to the sword, G.o.d vindicated Israel's t.i.tle.--Judges xi: 12-32.

And if at the present time, we take ground with Ammon about the rights of property, I will not say how much work we may have to do, nor who will prove the rightful owner of my correspondent's domicil; but certain I am, that by his Ammonitish principle of settling the rights of property, he will be ousted.

Reader, in looking over the printed reply of my correspondent to his Southern friend, which occupies ten columns of a large newspaper, to see if I had overlooked any Scripture, I find I have omitted to notice one reference to the sacred volume, which was made by him, for the general purpose of showing that the Scriptures abound with moral principles, and call into exercise moral feelings inconsistent with slavery. It is this: "Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me." The design of the Saviour, in the parable from which these words are taken, in Matt. xxv, is, to impress strongly upon the human mind, that _character_, deficient in _correct moral feeling_, will prove fatal to human hopes in a coming day.

But, reader, will you stop and ask yourself, "What is correct moral feeling?" Is it abhorrence and hatred to the will and pleasure of G.o.d?

Certainly not. Then it is not abhorrence and hatred of slavery, which seems to be a cardinal virtue at the North. It has been the will and pleasure of G.o.d to inst.i.tute slavery by a law of his own, in that kingdom over which he immediately presided; and to give it his sanction when inst.i.tuted by the laws of men. The most elevated morality is enjoined under both Testaments, upon the parties in this relation. There is nothing in the relation inconsistent with its exercise.

My reader will remember that the subject in dispute is, whether involuntary and hereditary slavery was ever lawful in the sight of G.o.d, the Bible being judge.

1. I have shown by the Bible, that G.o.d decreed this relation between the posterity of Canaan, and the posterity of Shem and j.a.pheth.

2. I have shown that G.o.d executed this decree by aiding the posterity of Shem, (at a time when "they were holiness to the Lord,") to enslave the posterity of Canaan in the days of Joshua.

3. I have shown that when G.o.d ratified the covenant of promise with Abraham, he recognized Abraham as the owner of slaves he had bought with his money of the stranger, and recorded his approbation of the relation, by commanding Abraham to circ.u.mcise them.

4. I have shown that when he took Abraham's posterity by the hand in Egypt, five hundred years afterward, he publicly approbated the same relation, by permitting every slave they had bought with their money to eat the Pa.s.sover, while he refused the same privilege to their _hired servants_.

5. I have shown that G.o.d, as their national law-giver, ordained by express statute, that they should buy slaves of the nations around them, (the seven devoted nations excepted,) and that these slaves and their increase should be a perpetual inheritance to their children.

6. I have shown that G.o.d ordained slavery by law for their captives taken in war, while he guaranteed a successful issue to their wars, so long as they obeyed him.

7. I have shown that when Jesus ordered his gospel to be published through the world, the relation of master and slave existed by law in every province and family of the Roman Empire, as it had done in the Jewish commonwealth for fifteen hundred years.

8. I have shown that Jesus ordained, that the legislative authority, which created this relation in that empire, should be obeyed and honored as an ordinance of G.o.d, as all government is declared to be.

9. I have shown that Jesus has prescribed the mutual duties of this relation in his kingdom.

10. And lastly, I have shown, that in an attempt by his professed followers to disturb this relation in the Apostolic churches, Jesus orders that fellowship shall be disclaimed with all such disciples, as seditious persons--whose conduct was not only dangerous to the State, but destructive to the true character of the gospel dispensation.

This being the case, as will appear by the recorded language of the Bible, to which we have referred you, reader, of what use is it to argue against it from moral requirements?

They regulate the duties of this and all other lawful relations among men--but they cannot abolish any relation, ordained or sanctioned of G.o.d, as is slavery.

I would be understood as referring for proof of this summary, to my first as well as my present essay.

When I first wrote, I did suppose the Scriptures had been examined by leading men in the opposition, and that prejudice had blinded their eyes. I am now of a different opinion. What will be the effect of this discussion, I will not venture to predict, knowing human nature as well as I do. But men who are capable of exercising candor must see, that it is not against an inst.i.tution unknown to the Bible, or declared by its author to be sinful, that the North is waging war.

Their hostility must be transferred from us to G.o.d, who established slavery by law in that kingdom over which he condescended to preside; and to Jesus, who recognized it as a relation established in Israel by his Father, and in the Roman government by men, which he bound his followers to obey and honor.

In defending the inst.i.tution as one which has the sanction of our Maker, I have done what I considered, under the peculiar circ.u.mstances of our common country, to be a Christian duty. I have set down naught in malice. I have used no sophistry. I have brought to the investigation of the subject, common sense. I have not relied on powers of argument, learning, or ingenuity. These would neither put the subject into the Bible nor take it out. It is a Bible question. I have met it fairly, and fully, according to the acknowledged principles of the abolitionists. I have placed before my reader what is in the Bible, to prove that slavery has the sanction of G.o.d, and is not sinful. I have placed before him what I suppose to be the quintessence of all that can be gleaned from the Bible to disprove it.