The Anti-Slavery Examiner Volume I Part 31

Finally, by originally vesting _all_ men with dominion or ownership over property, G.o.d proclaimed the _right of all_ to exercise it, and p.r.o.nounced every man who takes it away a robber of the highest grade.

Such is every slaveholder.]

In further prosecuting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems will be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, and as many regulations of the latter are mere _legal_ forms of Divine inst.i.tutions previously existing. As a _system_, the latter alone is of Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs G.o.d has not made them our exemplars.[B] The question to be settled by us, is not what were Jewish _customs_, but what were the rules that G.o.d gave for the regulation of those customs.

[Footnote B: Those who insist that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit with such delight under their shadow, hymning the praises of "those good old slaveholders and patriarchs," might at small cost greatly augment their numbers. A single stanza celebrating patriarchal _concubinage_, winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, would be a trumpet-call, summoning from brothels, bush and brake, highway and hedge, and sheltering fence, a brotherhood of kindred affinities, each claiming Abraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, "My name is legion." A myriad choir and thunderous song!]

Before entering upon an a.n.a.lysis of the condition of servants under these two states of society, we will consider the import of certain terms which describe the mode of procuring them.

IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY."

As the Israelites were commanded to "buy" their servants, and as Abraham had servants "bought with money," it is argued that servants were articles of property! The sole ground for this belief is _the terms themselves!_ How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be proved were always _a.s.sumed_! To beg the question in debate, is vast economy of midnight oil, and a wholesale forestaller of wrinkles and gray hairs. Instead of protracted investigation into Scripture usage, painfully collating pa.s.sages, to settle the meaning of terms, let every man interpret the oldest book in the world by the usages of his own time and place, and the work is done. And then instead of one revelation, they might be multiplied as the drops of the morning, and every man have an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, in the dialect of his own neighborhood! What a Babel-jargon, to take it for granted that the sense in which words are _now_ used, is the _inspired_ sense. David says, "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried." What, stop the earth in its revolution! Two hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in its strict Latin sense, to _come before_, or _antic.i.p.ate_. It is always used in this sense in the Old and New Testaments. David's expression, in the English of the nineteenth century, would be "Before the dawning of the morning I cried." In almost every chapter of the Bible, words are used in a sense now nearly, or quite obsolete, and sometimes in a sense totally _opposite_ to their present meaning. A few examples follow: "I purposed to come to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the four _beasts_ (living ones) fell down and worshiped G.o.d,"--"Whosoever shall _offend_ (cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--Go out into the highways and _compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--Only let your _conversation_ (habitual conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,"--"The Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the _quick_ (living) and the dead,"--They that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me," So when tribulation or persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (immediately) they are offended."

Nothing is more mutable than language. Words, like bodies, are always throwing off some particles and absorbing others. So long as they are mere representatives, elected by the whims of universal suffrage, their meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it up for the next century is an employment sufficiently silly (to speak within bounds) for a modern Bible-Dictionary maker. There never was a shallower conceit than that of establishing the sense attached to a word centuries ago, by showing what it means _now_. Pity that fashionable mantuamakers were not a little quicker at taking hints from some Doctors of Divinity. How easily they might save their pious customers all qualms of conscience about the weekly shiftings of fashion, by proving that the last importation of Parisian indecency now "showing off" on promenade, was the very style of dress in which the modest and pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the angels. Since such a fashion flaunts along Broadway _now_, it _must_ have trailed over Canaan four thousand years ago!

The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the fallacy, that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of your paying for it, _proves_ it property. 1. The children of Israel were required to purchase their firstborn from under the obligations of the priesthood, Num. xviii. 15, 16; iii. 45-51; Ex. xiii. 13; x.x.xiv. 20.

This custom still exists among the Jews, and the word _buy_ is still used to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their firstborn were or are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really as were _servants_. 2. The Israelites were required to pay money for their own souls. This is called sometimes a ransom, sometimes an atonement. Were their souls therefore marketable commodities? 3. When the Israelites set apart themselves or their children to the Lord by vow, for the performance of some service, an express statute provided that a _price_ should be set upon the "_persons_," and it prescribed the manner and _terms_ of the "estimation" or valuation, by the payment of which, the persons might be _bought off_ from the service vowed. The _price_ for males from one month old to five years, was five shekels, for females, three; from five years old to twenty, for males, twenty shekels, for females, ten; from twenty years old to sixty, for males, fifty shekels, for females, thirty; above sixty years old, for males, fifteen shekels, for females, ten, Lev. xxvii. 2-8. What egregious folly to contend that all these descriptions of persons were goods and chattels because they were _bought_ and their _prices_ regulated by law! 4. Bible saints _bought_ their wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ (bought) to be my wife." Ruth iv.

10.[A] Hosea bought his wife. "So I _bought_ her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of Barley, and an half homer of barley." Hosea iii. 2. Jacob bought his wives Rachael and Leah, and not having money, paid for them in labor--seven years a piece. Gen. xxix.

15-23. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, and paid for her by his labor, as the servant of her father.[B] Exod. ii. 21. Shechem, when negotiating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, says, "Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me." Gen. x.x.xiv. 11, 12. David purchased Michael, and Othniel, Achsah, by performing perilous services for the fathers of the damsels. 1 Sam.

xviii. 25-27; Judg. i. 12, 13. That the purchase of wives, either with money or by service, was the general practice, is plain from such pa.s.sages as Ex. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Among the modern Jews this usage exists, though now a mere form, there being no _real_ purchase. Yet among their marriage ceremonies, is one called "marrying by the penny." The similarity in the methods of procuring wives and servants, in the terms employed in describing the transactions, and in the prices paid for each, are worthy of notice. The highest price of wives (virgins) and servants was the same. Comp. Deut, xxii. 28, 29, and Ex. xxii. 17, with Lev. xxvii. 2-8. The _medium_ price of wives and servants was the same. Comp. Hos. iii. 2, with Ex. xxi. 32. Hosea seems to have paid one half in money and the other half in grain. Further, the Israelitish female bought-servants were _wives_, their husbands and masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3, 27. If _buying_ servants proves them property, buying wives proves _them_ property. Why not contend that the _wives_ of the ancient fathers of the faithful were their "chattels," and used as ready change at a pinch; and thence deduce the rights of modern husbands? Alas! Patriarchs and prophets are followed afar off! When will pious husbands live up to their Bible privileges, and become partakers with Old Testament worthies in the blessedness of a husband's rightful immunities! Refusing so to do, is questioning the morality of those "good old slaveholders and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

[Footnote A: In the verse preceding, Boaz says, "I have _bought_ all that was Elimelech's * * * of the hand of Naomi." In the original, the same word (_kana_) is used in both verses. In the 9th, "a parcel of land" is "bought," in the 10th a "wife" is "bought." If the Israelites had been as profound at inferences as our modern Commentators, they would have put such a fact as this to the rack till they had tortured out of it a divine warrant for holding their wives as property and speculating in the article whenever it happened to be scarce.]

[Footnote B: This custom still prevails in some eastern countries. The Crim Tartars, who are poor, serve an apprenticeship for their wives, during which they live under the same roof with them and at the close of it are adopted into the family.]

This use of the word buy, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. In the Syriac, the common expression for "the espoused," is "the bought." Even so late as the 16th century, the common record of _marriages_ in the old German Chronicles was, "A BOUGHT B."

The word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the nature of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, "I have _gotten_ (bought) a man from the Lord." She named him Cain, that is _bought_. "He that heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) understanding," Prov. xv. 32. So in Isa. xi. 11. "The Lord shall set his hand again to recover (to _buy_) the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. "He brought them to his mountain which his right hand had _purchased_," (gotten.) Neh. v. 8. "We of our ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren the Jews, that were sold unto the heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons reduced to servitude, but to those taken _out_ of it. Prov. viii. 22.

"The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way." Prov. xix.

8. "He that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Finally, to _buy_ is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word _kana_.

Even at this day the word _buy_ is used to describe the procuring of servants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West Indies, where slaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still, (1837,) "bought."

This is the current word in West India newspapers. Ten years since servants were "_bought_" in New York, and still are in New Jersey, as really as in Virginia, yet the different senses in which the word is used in those states, puts no man in a quandary. Under the system of legal _indenture_ in Illinois, servants now are "_bought_."[A] Until recently immigrants to this country were "bought" in great numbers. By voluntary contract they engaged to work a given time to pay for their pa.s.sage. This cla.s.s of persons, called "redemptioners," consisted at one time of thousands. Mult.i.tudes are "bought" _out_ of slavery by themselves or others. Under the same roof with the writer is a "servant bought with money." A few weeks since, she was a slave; when "bought,"

she was a slave no longer. Alas! for our leading politicians if "buying"

men makes them "chattels." The Whigs say, that Calhoun has been "bought"

by the administration; and the other party, that Clay and Webster have been "bought" by the Bank. The histories of the revolution tell us that Benedict Arnold was "bought" by British gold, and that Williams, Paulding, and Van Wert, could not be "bought" by Major Andre. When a northern clergyman marries a rich southern widow, country gossip thus. .h.i.ts off the indecency, "The cotton bags _bought_ him." Sir Robert Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it, can _buy_ him," and John Randolph said, "The northern delegation is in the market; give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them." The temperance publications tell us that candidates for office _buy_ men with whiskey; and the oracles of street tattle, that the court, district attorney, and jury, in the late trial of Robinson were _bought_, yet we have no floating visions of "chattels personal," man-auctions, or coffles.

[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the free state of Illinois--"No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time _purchase_ any servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the persons aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such servant shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and taken."]

In Connecticut, town paupers are "bought" by individuals, who, for a stipulated sum become responsible to the town for their comfortable support for one year. If these "bought" persons perform any labor for those who "buy" them, it is wholly _voluntary_. It is hardly necessary to add that they are in no sense the "property" of their purchasers.[A]

[Footnote A: "The select-men" of each town annually give notice, that at such a time and place, they will proceed to _sell_ the poor of said town. The persons thus "sold" are "bought" by such persons, approved by the "select-men," as engage to furnish them with sufficient wholesome food, adequate clothing, shelter, medicine, &c., for such a sum as the parties may agree upon. The Connecticut papers frequently contain advertis.e.m.e.nts like the following: "NOTICE--The poor of the town of Chatham will be SOLD on the first Monday in April, 1837, at the house of F. Penfield, Esq., at 9 o'clock in the forenoon,"--[Middletown Sentinel, Feb. 3, 1837.] ]

The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to the use of "buy" and "bought with money." Gen. xlvii. 18-26. The Egyptians proposed to Joseph to become servants. When the bargain was closed, Joseph said, "Behold I have _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain that neither party regarded the persons _bought_ as articles of property, but merely as bound to labor on certain conditions, to pay for their support during the famine. The idea attached by both parties to "buy us," and "behold I have bought you," was merely that of service voluntarily offered, and secured by contract, in return, for _value received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft of their personal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of _services_ (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in Scripture usage, _buying the persons_. This case claims special notice, as it is the only one where the whole transaction of buying servants is detailed--the preliminaries, the process, the mutual acquiescence, and the permanent relation resulting therefrom. In all other instances, the mere fact is stated without particulars. In this case, the whole process is laid open. 1. The persons "bought," _sold themselves_, and of their own accord. 2. Paying for the permanent _service_ of persons, or even a portion of it, is called "buying" those persons; just as paying for the _use_ of land or houses for a number of years in succession is called in Scripture usage _buying_ them. See Lev. xxv. 28, 33, and xxvii. 24. The objector, at the outset, takes it for granted, that servants were bought of _third_ persons; and thence infers that they were articles of property. Both the alleged fact and the inference are _sheer a.s.sumptions_. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in which a _master sold his servant_.

That servants who were "bought," _sold themselves_, is a fair inference from various pa.s.sages of Scripture.[A] In Leviticus xxv. 47, the case of the Israelite, who became the servant of the stranger, the words are, "If he SELL HIMSELF unto the stranger." Yet the 51st verse informs us that this servant was "BOUGHT" and that the price of his purchase was paid to _himself_. The _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word, which, in verse 47, is rendered _sell himself_, is in verse 39 of the same chapter, rendered _be sold_; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is rendered "be sold." "And there ye shall BE SOLD unto your enemies for bond-men and bond-women and NO MAN SHALL BUY YOU." How could they "_be sold_" without _being bought_? Our translation makes it nonsense. The word _Makar_ rendered "_be sold_" is used here in Hithpael conjugation, which is generally reflexive in its force, and like the middle voice in Greek, represents what an individual does for himself, and should manifestly have been rendered "ye shall _offer yourselves_ for sale, and there shall be no purchaser." For a clue to Scripture usage on this point, see 1 Kings xxi. 20. 25.--"Thou hast _sold thyself_ to work evil." "There was none like unto Ahab which did sell _himself_ to work wickedness."--2 Kings xvii. 17. "They used divination and enchantments, and _sold themselves_ to do evil."--Isa. l. 1. "For your iniquities have ye _sold yourselves."_ Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have _sold yourselves_ FOR NOUGHT, and ye shall be redeemed without money." See also, Jer. x.x.xiv.

14; Rom. vii. 14, vi. 16; John, viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians, already quoted. In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is generally stated that they were bought of _third_ persons.

If _servants_ were bought of third persons, it is strange that no _instance_ of it is on record.

[Footnote A: Those who insist that the servants which the Israelites were commanded to buy of "the heathen which were round about" them, were to be bought of _third persons_, virtually charge G.o.d with the inconsistency of recognizing and affirming the right of those very persons to freedom, upon whom, say they, he p.r.o.nounced the doom of slavery. For they tell us, that the sentence of death uttered against those heathen was commuted into slavery, which punishment G.o.d denounced against them. Now if "the heathen round about" were doomed to slavery, the _sellers_ were doomed as well as the _sold_. Where, we ask, did the sellers get their right to sell? G.o.d by commanding the Israelites to BUY, affirmed the right of _somebody_ to _sell_, and that the _ownership_ of what was sold existed _somewhere_; which _right_ and ownership he commanded them to _recognize_ and _respect_. We repeat the question, where did the heathen _sellers_ get their right to sell, since _they_ were dispossessed of their right to _themselves_ and doomed to slavery equally with those whom they sold. Did G.o.d's decree vest in them a right to _others_ while it annulled their right to _themselves_? If, as the objector's argument a.s.sumes, one part of "the heathen round about" were _already_ held as slaves by the other part, _such_ of course were not _doomed_ to slavery, for they were already slaves. So also, if those heathen who held them as slaves had a _right_ to hold them, which right G.o.d commanded the Israelites to _buy out_, thus requiring them to recognize _it_ as a _right_, and on no account to procure its transfer to themselves without paying to the holders an equivalent, surely, these _slaveholders_ were not doomed by G.o.d to be slaves, for according to the objector, G.o.d had himself affirmed their right _to hold others as slaves_, and commanded his people to respect it.]

We now proceed to inquire into the _condition_ of servants under the patriarchal and Mosaic systems.

I. THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF SERVANTS.

The leading design of the laws defining the relations of master and servant, was the good of both parties--more especially the good of the _servants_. While the master's interests were guarded from injury, those of the servants were _promoted_. These laws made a merciful provision for the poorer cla.s.ses, both of the Israelites and Strangers, not laying on burdens, but lightening them--they were a grant of _privileges_ and _favors_.

I. BUYING SERVANTS WAS REGARDED AS A KINDNESS TO THE PERSONS BOUGHT, and as establishing between them and their purchasers a bond of affection and confidence. This is plain from the frequent use of it to ill.u.s.trate the love and care of G.o.d for his chosen people. Deut. x.x.xii. 6; Ex. xv.

16; Ps. lxxiv. 2; Prov. viii. 22.

II. NO STRANGER COULD JOIN THE FAMILY OF AN ISRAELITE WITHOUT BECOMING A PROSELYTE. Compliance with this condition was the _price of the privilege_. Gen. xvii. 9-14, 23, 27. In other words, to become a servant was virtually to become an Israelite.[A] In the light of this fact, look at the relation sustained by a proselyted servant to his master. Was it a sentence consigning to _punishment_, or a ticket of admission to _privileges_?

[Footnote A: The rites by which a stranger became a proselyte transformed him into a Jew. Compare 1 Chron. ii. 17, with 2 Sam. xvii.

25. In Esther viii. 17, it is said "Many of the people of the land _became Jews_." In the Septuagint, the pa.s.sage is thus rendered, "Many of the heathen were circ.u.mcised and became Jews." The intimate union and incorporation of the proselytes with the Hebrews is shown by such pa.s.sages as Isa. lvi. 6, 7, 8; Eph. ii. 11, 22; Num. x. 29-32. Calmet, Art. Proselyte, says "They were admitted to all the prerogatives of the people of the Lord." Mahommed doubtless borrowed from the laws and usages of the Jews, his well known regulation for admitting to all civil and religious privileges, all proselytes of whatever nation or religion.]

III. EXPULSION FROM THE FAMILY WAS THE DEPRIVATION OF A PRIVILEGE IF NOT A PUNISHMENT. When Sarah took umbrage at the conduct of Hagar and Ishmael, her servants, "She said unto Abraham _cast out_ this bond-woman and her son." * * And Abraham rose up early in the morning and took bread and a bottle of water and gave it unto Hagar and the child, and _sent her away_. Gen. xxi. 10, 14; in Luke xvi. 1-8, our Lord tells us of the steward or head-servant of a rich man who defrauded his master, and was, in consequence, excluded from his household. The servant antic.i.p.ating such a punishment, says, "I am resolved what to do, that when I am _put out_ of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses." The case of Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, appears to be a similar one. He was guilty of fraud in procuring a large sum of money from Naaman, and of deliberate lying to his master, on account of which Elisha seems to have discarded him. 2 Kings v. 20-27. In this connection we may add that if a servant neglected the observance of any ceremonial rite, and was on that account excommunicated from the congregation of Israel, such excommunication excluded him also from the _family_ of an Israelite. In other words he could be a _servant_ no longer than he was an _Israelite_. To forfeit the latter _distinction_ involved the forfeiture of the former _privilege_--which proves that it _was_ a privilege.

IV. THE HEBREW SERVANT COULD COMPEL HIS MASTER TO KEEP HIM.

When the six years' contract had expired, if the servant _demanded_ it, the law _obliged_ the master to retain him permanently, however little he might need his services. Deut. xv. 12-17; Ex. xxi. 2-6. This shows that the system was framed to advance the interest and gratify the wishes of the servant quite as much as those of the master.

V. SERVANTS WERE ADMITTED INTO COVENANT WITH G.o.d. Deut. xxix. 10-13.

VI. THEY WERE GUESTS AT ALL NATIONAL AND FAMILY FESTIVALS Ex. xii.

43-44; Deut xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16.

VII. THEY WERE STATEDLY INSTRUCTED IN MORALITY AND RELIGION. Deut. x.x.xi.

10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35; 2 Chron. xvii. 8-9, x.x.xv. 3, and x.x.xiv. 30.

Neh. viii. 7, 8.

VIII. THEY WERE RELEASED FROM THEIR REGULAR LABOR NEARLY ONE HALF OF THE WHOLE TIME. During which they had their entire support, and the same instruction that was provided for the other members of the Hebrew community. The Law secured to them,

1. _Every seventh year;_ Lev. xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who were servants during the entire period between the jubilees, _eight whole years_, (including the jubilee year,) of unbroken rest.

2. _Every seventh day._ This in forty-two years, the eight being subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just _six years_.

3. _The three annual festivals._ Ex. xxiii. 17, x.x.xiv. 23. The _Pa.s.sover_, which commenced on the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which began on the 6th day of the 3d month, and lasted seven days. Deut. xvi.

10, 11. The Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the 7th month, and lasted eight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. xxiii. 34-39. As all met in one place, much time would be spent on the journey. c.u.mbered caravans move slowly. After their arrival, a day or two would be requisite for divers preparations before the celebration, besides some time at the close of it, in preparations for return. If we a.s.sign three weeks to each festival--including the time spent on the journeys, and the delays before and after the celebration, together with the _festival week_, it will be a small allowance for the cessation of their regular labor. As there were three festivals in the year, the main body of the servants would be absent from their stated employments at least _nine weeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.

4. _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says that the Jews always kept _two_ days for the new moon. See Calmet on the Jewish Calendar, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx, 18, 19, 27. This, in forty-two years, would be two years 280 days.

5. _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.

6. _The atonement day_. On the tenth of the seventh month Lev. xxiii.

27.