The Anti-Slavery Examiner Volume I Part 5

TO THE

CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH,

BY A.E. GRIMKe REVISED AND CORRECTED.

"Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not within thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shalt there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place: but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this. And Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer:--and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to law, and _if I perish, I perish_."

Esther IV. 13-16.

RESPECTED FRIENDS,

It is because I feel a deep and tender interest in your present and eternal welfare that I am willing thus publicly to address you. Some of you have loved me as a relative, and some have felt bound to me in Christian sympathy, and Gospel fellowship; and even when compelled by a strong sense of duty, to break those outward bonds of union which bound us together as members of the same community, and members of the same religious denomination, you were generous enough to give me credit, for sincerity as a Christian, though you believed I had been most strangely deceived. I thanked you then for your kindness, and I ask you _now_, for the sake of former confidence, and former friendship, to read the following pages in the spirit of calm investigation and fervent prayer.

It is because you have known me, that I write thus unto you.

But there are other Christian women scattered over the Southern States, of whom a very large number have never seen me, and never heard my name, and feel _no_ personal interest whatever in _me_. But I feel an interest in _you_, as branches of the same vine from whose root I daily draw the principle of spiritual vitality--Yes! Sisters in Christ I feel an interest in _you_, and often has the secret prayer arisen on your behalf, Lord "open thou their eyes that they may see wondrous things out of thy Law"--It is then, because I _do feel_ and _do pray_ for you, that I thus address you upon a subject about which of all others, perhaps you would rather not hear any thing; but, "would to G.o.d ye could bear with me a little in my folly, and indeed bear with me, for I am jealous over you with G.o.dly jealousy." Be not afraid then to read my appeal; it is _not_ written in the heat of pa.s.sion or prejudice, but in that solemn calmness which is the result of conviction and duty. It is true, I am going to tell you unwelcome truths, but I mean to speak these _truths in love_, and remember Solomon says, "faithful are the _wounds_ of a friend." I do not believe the time has yet come when _Christian women_ "will not endure sound doctrine," even on the subject of Slavery, if it is spoken to them in tenderness and love, therefore I now address _you_.

POSTAGE.--This periodical contains four and a half sheets. Postage under 100 miles, 6 3-4 cents; over 100 miles, 11 1-4 cents.

_PLEASE READ AND CIRCULATE._

To all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers, (for you are all _one_ in Christ,) I would speak. I have felt for you at this time, when unwelcome light is pouring in upon the world on the subject of slavery; light which even Christians would exclude, if they could, from our country, or at any rate from the southern portion of it, saying, as its rays strike the rock bound coasts of New England and scatter their warmth and radiance over her hills and valleys, and from thence travel onward over the Palisades of the Hudson, and down the soft flowing waters of the Delaware and gild the waves of the Potomac, "hitherto shalt thou come and no further;" I know that even professors of His name who has been emphatically called the "Light of the world"

would, if they could, build a wall of adamant around the Southern States whose top might reach unto heaven, in order to shut out the light which is bounding from mountain to mountain and from the hills to the plains and valleys beneath, through the vast extent of our Northern States. But believe me, when I tell you, their attempts will be as utterly fruitless as were the efforts of the builders of Babel; and why? Because moral, like natural light, is so extremely subtle in its nature as to overleap all human barriers, and laugh at the puny efforts of man to control it.

All the excuses and palliations of this system must inevitably be swept away, just as other "refuges of lies" have been, by the irresistible torrent of a rectified public opinion. "The _supporters_ of the slave system," says Jonathan Dymond in his admirable work on the Principles of Morality, "will _hereafter_ be regarded with the _same_ public feeling, as he who was an advocate for the slave trade _now_ is." It will be, and that very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged by all the virtuous and the candid, that in _principle_ it is as sinful to hold a human being in bondage who has been born in Carolina, as one who has been born in Africa. All that sophistry of argument which has been employed to prove, that although it is sinful to send to Africa to procure men and women as slaves, who have never been in slavery, that still, it is not sinful to keep those in bondage who have come down by inheritance, will be utterly overthrown. We must come back to the good old doctrine of our forefathers who declared to the world, "this self evident truth that _all_ men are created equal, and that they have certain _inalienable_ rights among which are life, _liberty_, and the pursuit of happiness." It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a man can be legally born a slave under _our free Republican_ Government, than under the petty despotisms of barbarian Africa. If then, we have no right to enslave an African, surely we can have none to enslave an American; if it is a self evident truth that _all_ men, every where and of every color are born equal, and have an _inalienable right to liberty_, then it is equally true that _no_ man can be born a slave, and no man can ever _rightfully_ be reduced to _involuntary_ bondage and held as a slave, however fair may be the claim of his master or mistress through wills and t.i.tle-deeds.

But after all, it may be said, our fathers were certainly mistaken, for the Bible sanctions Slavery, and that is the highest authority. Now the Bible is my ultimate appeal in all matters of faith and practice, and it is to _this test_ I am anxious to bring the subject at issue between us.

Let us then begin with Adam and examine the charter of privileges which was given to him. "Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." In the eighth Psalm we have a still fuller description of this charter which through Adam was given to all mankind. "Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet. All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatsoever pa.s.seth through the paths of the seas." And after the flood when this charter of human rights was renewed, we find _no additional_ power vested in man. "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered." In this charter, although the different kinds of _irrational_ beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion over _all of them_ is granted, yet _man_ is _never_ vested with this dominion _over his fellow man_; he was never told that any of the human species were put _under his feet_; it was only _all things_, and man, who was created in the image of his Maker, _never_ can properly be termed a _thing_, though the laws of Slave States do call him "a chattel personal;" _Man_ then, I a.s.sert _never_ was put _under the feet of man_, by that first charter of human right, which was given by G.o.d, to the Fathers of the Antediluvian and Postdiluvian worlds, therefore this doctrine of equality is based on the Bible.

But it may be argued, that in the very chapter of Genesis from which I have last quoted, will be found the curse p.r.o.nounced upon Canaan, by which his posterity was consigned to servitude under his brothers Shem and j.a.pheth. I know this prophecy was uttered, and was most fearfully and wonderfully fulfilled, through the immediate descendants of Canaan, i.e. the Canaanites, and I do not know but it has been through all the children of Ham, but I do know that prophecy does _not_ tell us what _ought to be_, but what actually does take place, ages after it has been delivered, and that if we justify America for enslaving the children of Africa, we must also justify Egypt for reducing the children of Israel to bondage, for the latter was foretold as explicitly as the former. I am well aware that prophecy has often been urged as an excuse for Slavery, but be not deceived, the fulfilment of prophecy will _not cover one sin_ in the awful day of account. Hear what our Saviour says on this subject; "it must needs be that offences come, but _woe unto that man through whom they come_"--Witness some fulfilment of this declaration in the tremendous destruction of Jerusalem, occasioned by that most nefarious of all crimes the crucifixion of the Son of G.o.d. Did the fact of that event having been foretold, exculpate the Jews from sin in perpetrating it; No--for hear what the Apostle Peter says to them on this subject, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of G.o.d, _ye_ have taken, and by _wicked_ hands have crucified and slain." Other striking instances might be adduced, but these will suffice.

But it has been urged that the patriarchs held slaves, and therefore, slavery is right. Do you really believe that patriarchal servitude was like American slavery? Can you believe it? If so, read the history of these primitive fathers of the church and be undeceived. Look at Abraham, though so great a man, going to the herd himself and fetching a calf from thence and serving it up with his own hands, for the entertainment of his guests. Look at Sarah, that princess as her name signifies, baking cakes upon the hearth. If the servants they had were like Southern slaves, would they have performed such comparatively menial offices for themselves? Hear too the plaintive lamentation of Abraham when he feared he should have no son to bear his name down to posterity. "Behold thou hast given me no seed, &c., one born in my house is _mine_ heir." From this it appears that one of his _servants_ was to inherit his immense estate. Is this like Southern slavery? I leave it to your own good sense and candor to decide. Besides, such was the footing upon which Abraham was with _his_ servants, that he trusted them with arms. Are slaveholders willing to put swords and pistols into the hands of their slaves? He was as a father among his servants; what are planters and masters generally among theirs? When the inst.i.tution of circ.u.mcision was established, Abraham was commanded thus; "He that is eight days old shall be circ.u.mcised among you, _every_ man-child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed." And to render this command with regard to his _servants_ still more impressive it is repeated in the very next verse; and herein we may perceive the great care which was taken by G.o.d to guard the _rights of servants_ even under this "dark dispensation." What too was the testimony given to the faithfulness of this eminent patriarch. "For I know him that he will command his children and his _household_ after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment." Now my dear friends many of you believe that circ.u.mcision has been superseded by baptism in the Church; _Are you_ careful to have _all_ that are born in your house or bought with money of any stranger, baptized? Are _you_ as faithful as Abraham to command _your household_ to _keep the way of the Lord?_ I leave it to your own consciences to decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like American Slavery?

But I shall be told, G.o.d sanctioned Slavery, yea commanded Slavery under the Jewish Dispensation. Let us examine this subject calmly and prayerfully. I admit that a species of _servitude_ was permitted to the Jews, but in studying the subject I have been struck with wonder and admiration at perceiving how carefully the servant was guarded from violence, injustice, and wrong. I will first inform you how these servants became servants, for I think this a very important part of our subject. From consulting Horne, Calmet, and the Bible, I find there were six different ways by which the Hebrews became servants legally.

1. A Hebrew, whose father was still alive, and who on that account had not inherited his patrimonial estate, might sell himself, i.e., his services, for six years, in which case _he_ received the purchase money _himself_. Ex. xxi, 2.

2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e., his _daughters_, in which circ.u.mstance it was understood the daughter was to be the wife or daughter-in-law of the man who bought her, and the _father_ received the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were in the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives, not_ as slaves. Ex. xxi, 7-11.

3. Thieves not able to make rest.i.tution for their thefts, were sold for the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.

4. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.

5. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself; but in such a case he was to serve, not as a bondsman, whose term of service was only six years, nor was he to serve as a hired servant, who received his wages every evening, nor yet as a sojourner or temporary resident in the family, but he was to serve his master until the year of Jubilee[A].

Lev. xxv, 39, 40.

[Footnote A: If the reader will leave out the italicised words--But and And, in the 40th verse--he will find that I am fully authorized in the meaning I have attached to it. But and And are _not_ in the original Hebrew; have been introduced by the translators, and entirely destroy the true sense of the pa.s.sage.]

6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be redeemed by one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; and he who redeemed him, was _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred, and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.

Before going into an examination of the laws by which these servants were protected, I would just ask whether American slaves have become slaves in any of the ways in which the Hebrews became servants. Did they sell themselves into slavery and receive the purchase money into their own hands? No! No! Did they steal the property of another, and were they sold to make rest.i.tution for their crimes? No! Did their present masters, as an act of kindness, redeem them from some heathen tyrant to whom _they had sold themselves_ in the dark hour of adversity? No! Were they born in slavery? No! No! Not according to _Jewish Law_, for the servants who were born in servitude among them, were born of parents who had _sold themselves_: Ex. xxi, 4; Lev. xxv, 39, 40. Were the female slaves of the South sold by their fathers? How shall I answer this question? Thousands and tens of thousands never were, _their_ fathers _never_ have received the poor compensation of silver or gold for the tears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless bondage of _their_ daughters. They labor day by day, and year by year, side by side, in the same field, if haply their daughters are permitted to remain on the same plantation with them, instead of being, as they often are, separated from their parents and sold into distant states, never again to meet on earth. But do the _fathers of the South ever sell their daughters?_ My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the awful affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell their daughters, _not_ as Jewish parents did, to be the wives and daughters-in-law of the men who buy them, but to be the abject slaves of petty tyrants and irresponsible masters. Is it not so, my friends? I leave it to your own candor to corroborate my a.s.sertion. Southern slaves then have _not_ become slaves in any of the six different ways in which Hebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters _cannot_ according to _Jewish law_ substantiate their claim to the men, women, or children they now hold in bondage.

But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced to servitude; it was this, he might be _stolen_ and afterwards sold as a slave, as was Joseph. To guard most effectually against this dreadful crime of manstealing, G.o.d enacted this severe law. "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." And again, "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then _that thief shall die_; and thou shalt put away evil from among you." Deut. xxiv, 7. As I have tried American Slavery by _legal_ Hebrew servitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that Jewish law cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by _illegal_ Hebrew bondage. Have the Southern slaves then been stolen? If they did not sell themselves into bondage; if they were not sold as thieves; if they were not redeemed from a heathen master to whom _they had sold themselves;_ if they were not born in servitude according to Hebrew law; and if the females were not sold by their fathers as wives and daughters-in-law to those who purchased them; then what shall we say of them? what can we say of them? but that according _to Hebrew Law they have been stolen._

But I shall be told that the Jews had other servants who were absolute slaves. Let us look a little into this also. They had other servants who were procured from the heathen.

Bondmen and bondmaids might be bought of the heathen round about them.

Lev. xxv, 44.

I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of Hebrew masters to their _heathen_ servants. Were the southern slaves bought from the heathen? No! For surely, no one will _now_ vindicate the slave-trade so far as to a.s.sert that slaves were bought from the heathen who were obtained by that system of piracy. The only excuse for holding southern slaves is that they were born in slavery, but we have seen that they were _not_ born in servitude as Jewish servants were, and that the children of heathen servants were not legally subjected to bondage, even under the Mosaic Law. How then have the slaves of the South been obtained?

I will next proceed to an examination of those laws which were enacted in order to protect the Hebrew and the Heathen servant; for I wish you to understand that _both_ were protected by Him, of whom it is said "his mercies are over _all_ his works." I will first speak of those which secured the rights of Hebrew servants. This code was headed thus:

1. Thou shalt _not_ rule over him with _rigor_, but shalt fear thy G.o.d.

2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. xxi, 2. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him _liberally_ out of thy flock and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press: of that wherewith the Lord thy G.o.d hath blessed thee, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv, 13, 14.

3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. Ex. xxi, 3.

4. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons and daughters, the wife and her children shall be his master's, and he shall go out by himself. Ex. xxi, 4.

5. If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto the Judges, and he shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him _for ever_. Ex. xxi, 5, 6.

6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go _free_ for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his man servant's tooth or his maid servant's tooth, he shall let him go _free_ for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.

7. On the Sabbath, rest was secured to servants by the fourth commandment. Ex. xx, 10.

8. Servants were permitted to unite with their masters three times in every year in celebrating the Pa.s.sover, the feast of Weeks, and the feast of Tabernacles; every male throughout the land was to appear before the Lord at Jerusalem with a gift; here the bond and the free stood on common ground. Deut. xvi.

9. If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Ex. xxi, 20, 21.

From these laws we learn, that one cla.s.s of Hebrew men servants were bound to serve their masters _only six_ years, unless their attachment to their employers, their wives and children, should induce them to wish to remain in servitude, in which case, in order to prevent the possibility of deception on the part of the master, the servant was first taken before the magistrate, where he openly declared his intention of continuing in his master's service, (probably a public register was kept of such,) he was then conducted to the door of the house, (in warm climates doors are thrown open.) and _there_ his ear was _publicly_ bored, and by submitting to this operation, he testified his willingness to serve him in subserviency to the law of G.o.d; for let it be remembered, that the door-post was covered with the precepts of that law. Deut. vi, 9. xi, 20: _for ever_, i.e., during his life, for Jewish Rabbins, who must have understood Jewish _slavery_ (as it is called), "affirm that servants were set free at the death of their masters, and did _not_ descend to their heirs;" or that he was to serve him until the year of Jubilee, when _all_ servants were set at liberty. The other cla.s.s, when they first sold themselves, agreed to remain until the year of Jubilee. To protect servants from violence, it was ordained, that if a master struck out the tooth or destroyed the eye of a servant, that servant immediately became _free_, for such an act of violence evidently showed he was unfit to possess the power of a master, and therefore that power was taken from him. All servants enjoyed the rest of the Sabbath, and partook of the privileges and festivities of the three great Jewish Feasts; and if a servant died under the infliction of chastis.e.m.e.nt, his master was surely to be punished. As a tooth for a tooth and life for life was the Jewish law, of course he was punished with death. I know that great stress has been laid upon the following verse: "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money."

Slaveholders, and the apologists of slavery, have eagerly seized upon this little pa.s.sage of Scripture, and held it up as the masters' Magna Charta, by which they were licensed by G.o.d himself to commit the greatest outrages upon the defenceless victims of their oppression. But, my friends, was it designed to be so? If our Heavenly Father would protect by law the _eye_ and the _tooth_ of a Hebrew servant, can we for a moment believe that he would abandon that same servant to the brutal rage of a master who would destroy even life itself? Let us then examine this pa.s.sage with the help of the context. In the 18th and 19th verses we have a law which was made for _freemen_ who strove together. Here we find, that if one man smote another, so that he died not, but only kept his bed from being disabled, and he rose again and walked abroad upon his staff, then _he_ was to be paid for the loss of his time, and all the expenses of his sickness were to be borne by the man who smote him.

The freeman's time was _his own_, and therefore he was to be remunerated for the loss of it. But _not_ so with the _servant_, whose time was, as it were, _the money of his master_, because he had already paid for it: If he continued a day or two after being struck, to keep his bed in consequence of any wound received, then his lost time was _not_ to be paid for, because it was _not his own_, but his master's, who had already paid him for it. The loss of his time was the _master's loss_, and _not_ the servant's. This explanation is confirmed by the fact, that the Hebrew word translated continue, means "to stand still;" _i.e._, to be unable to go out about his master's work.

Here then we find this stronghold of slavery completely demolished.

Instead of its being a license to inflict such chastis.e.m.e.nt upon a servant as to cause even death itself, it is in fact a law merely to provide that a man should not be required to pay his servant twice over for his time. It is altogether an unfounded a.s.sumption on the part of the slaveholder, that this servant _died_ after a day or two; the text does not say so, and I contend that he _got well_ after a day or two, just as the man mentioned in the 19th verse recovered from the effects of the blows he received. The cases are completely parallel, and the first law throws great light on the second. This explanation is far more consonant with the character of G.o.d, and were it not that our vision has been so completely darkened by the existence of slavery in our country, we never could so far have dishonored Him as to have supposed that He sanctioned the murder of a servant; although slaveholding legislators might legalize the killing of a slave in _four_ different ways.--(_Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws_.)