The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Omnibus Part 15

The general object of those statutes, which prescribed the relations of master and servant, was the good of both parties--but more especially the good of the _servants_. While the interests of the master were specially guarded from injury, those of the servants were _promoted_.

These laws were 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_--a bestowment of _favors_.

1. _No servant from the Strangers, could remain a servant in the family of an Israelite, without becoming a proselyte_. Compliance with this condition was the _price of the privilege_.--Genesis xvii. 9-14, 23, 27.

2. _Excommunication from the family was a_ PUNISHMENT.--Genesis xxi.

14-Luke xvi. 2-4.

3. _The fact that every Hebrew servant could_ COMPEL _his master to keep him after the six years contract had, expired_, shows that the system was framed to advance the interests and gratify the wishes of the servant _quite as much_ as those of the master. If the servant _demanded_ it, the law _obliged_ the master to retain him in his household, however little he might need his services, or great his dislike to the individual. Deut. xv. 12-17, and Exodus xxi. 2-6.

4. _The rights and privileges guaranteed by law to all servants._ (1.) _They were admitted into covenant with G.o.d._ Deut. xxix. 10-13.

(2.) _They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals of the household in which they resided._ Exodus xii. 43-44; Deut. xii.

12, 18, and xvi. 10-16.

(3.) _They were statedly instructed in morality and religion._ Deut.

x.x.xi. 10-13; Joshua viii. 33-35; 2 Chronicles xvii. 8-9.

(4.) _They were released from their regular labor nearly_ ONE HALF OF THE WHOLE TIME. During which, the law secured to them their entire support; and the same public and family instruction that was provided for the other members of the Hebrew community.

(a.) The Law secured to them the _whole of every seventh year_; Lev.

xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those servants that remained such during the entire period between the jubilees, _eight whole years_ (including the Jubilee year) of unbroken rest.

(b.) _Every seventh day_. This in forty-two years, (the eight being subtracted from the fifty) would amount to just _six years_.

(c.) _The three great annual festivals_. 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 sixth day of the third month, and lasted seven days. Lev. xxiii. 15-21. And the Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the seventh 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. Their c.u.mbered caravans moved slowly. After their arrival at the place of sacrifice, a day or two at least, would be requisite for divers preparations, before entering upon the celebration of the festival, besides some time at the close of it, in preparations for their return. If we a.s.sign three weeks to each festival--including the time spent on the journey going and returning, 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.

(e.) _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus tells us that the Jews always kept _two_ days for the new moon. See Calmet on the Jewish Calender, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx, 18, 19, 27.

This would amount in forty-two years, to two years, two hundred and eighty days, after the necessary subtractions.

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

(g.) _The day of atonement_. On the tenth of the seventh month. Lev.

xxiii. 27-32.

These two last feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days of time not otherwise reckoned.

Thus it appears that those persons who continued servants during the whole period between the jubilees, were by law released from their labor, TWENTY-THREE YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and those who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In the foregoing calculation, besides making a generous donation of all the _fractions_ to the objector, we have left out of the account, those numerous _local_ festivals to which frequent allusion is made, as in Judges xxi. 19; 1 Sam. 9th chapter. And the various _family_ festivals, such as at the weaning of children; at marriages; at sheep shearings; at the making of covenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in 1st Sam. xx. 28, 29. Neither have we included those memorable festivals inst.i.tuted at a later period of the Jewish history. The feast of Purim, Esther, ix. 28, 29; and the feast of the Dedication, which lasted eight days. John x. 22; 1 Mac. iv. 59.

Finally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time, which, if distributed, would on an average be almost ONE HALF OF THE DAYS IN EACH YEAR. Meanwhile, they and their families were supported, and furnished with opportunities of instruction. If this amount of time were distributed over _every day_, the servants would have _to themselves_, all but a _fraction of_ ONE HALF OF EACH DAY, and would labor for their masters the remaining fraction and the other half of the day.

THIS REGULATION IS A PART OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE GREAT PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.

5. _The servant was protected by law equally with the other members of the community_.

Proof--"_Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his neighbor, and_ THE STRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM."

"_Ye shall not_ RESPECT PERSONS _in judgment, but ye shall hear the_ SMALL _as well as the great_." Deut. i. 16, 17. Also in Lev. xxiv. 22.

"_Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country, for I am the Lord your G.o.d_." So Numbers xv. 29.

"_Ye shall have_ ONE LAW _for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the_ STRANGER _that sojourneth among them_." Deut. xxvii. 19. "_Cursed be he that_ PERVERTETH THE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER, _the fatherless and the widow_."

6. _The Mosaic system enjoined upon the Israelites the greatest affection and kindness toward their servants, foreign as well as Jewish_.

Lev. xix. 34. "_The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself_." Also Deut. x.

17, 19. "_For the Lord your G.o.d is G.o.d of G.o.ds, and Lord of lords, a great G.o.d, a mighty and a terrible, which_ REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, _nor taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and_ LOVETH THE STRANGER, _in giving him food and raiment_, LOVE YE THEREFORE THE STRANGER." So Exodus xxii. 21. "_Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him_." Exodus xxiii. 9. "_Thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger_." Lev. xxv. 35, 36. "_If thy brother be waxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a_ STRANGER _or a sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no usury of him or increase, but fear thy G.o.d_." [What an absurdity to suppose that _this same stranger_ could be taken by one that _feared his G.o.d_, held as a _slave_, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights!]

7. _Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in all civil and religious rights_. See Numbers xv. 15, 16, 29. Numb. ix. 14. Deut, i. 16, 17. Lev. xxiv. 22.

III.--DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE THEY MADE SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?

We argue that they became servants _of their own accord_,

1. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with G.o.d[A], to be circ.u.mcised in token of it, to be bound to the observance of the Sabbath, of the Pa.s.sover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in all the particulars of the moral and ceremonial law.

[Footnote A: Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven hundred years ago, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: "Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant."

"But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he that is bought with money, on the day on which the master receives him, unless the slave be _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown slave, and he be _unwilling_, his master is to bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year.

After which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him, longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers from whence he came. For the G.o.d of Jacob will not accept any other than the worship of a _willing_ heart."--Maimon, Hilcoth, Miloth, Chap. 1st, Sec. 8th.

The ancient Jewish Doctors agree in the testimony, that the servant from the strangers who at the close of his probationary year still refused to adopt the religion of the Mosaic system, and was on that account cut off from the family, and sent back to his own people, received a _full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. But that _postponement_ of the circ.u.mcision of the foreign servant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of an Israelite) of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a mere usage_.

We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system.

Circ.u.mcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_. Whether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes not within the scope of this inquiry. Nor does it at all affect the argument. ]

Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes? Was the renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant with G.o.d? Were they seized and circ.u.mcised by _main strength_? Were they _compelled_ mechanically to chew, and swallow, the flesh of the Paschal lamb, while they abhorred the inst.i.tution, despised its ceremonies, spurned the law which enjoined it, detested its author and executors, and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemmorated, bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were they _driven_ from all parts of the land three times in the year up to the annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they nauseated? Were they goaded through a round of ceremonies, to them senseless and disgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a creed rank with loathed abominations?

We repeat it, to become a _servant_, was to become a _proselyte_. And how did G.o.d authorize his people to make proselytes? At the point of the sword? By the terror of pains and penalties? By converting men into _merchandise_? Were _proselyte_ and _chattel_ synonymes, in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into covenant with G.o.d? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and the sole pa.s.sport to the communion of the saints?

2. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, "_Thou shall not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him_."

As though G.o.d had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him. His _fleeing_ "shows his _choice_--proclaims his wrongs, his master's oppressive acts, and his own claim to legal protection." You shall not force him back, and thus recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him in such a condition as induces him to flee to others for protection." It may be objected, that this command had no reference to servants among the _Israelites_, but only to those of _heathen_ masters in the surrounding nations. We answer, The regulation has no restriction. Its terms are unlimited. But the objection, even if valid, merely shifts the pressure of the difficulty to another point. Does G.o.d array his infinite authority to protect the _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of _thousands_ of servants from the heathen! Suppose a case. A _foreign_ servant flees from his master to the Israelites; G.o.d speaks, "He shall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it _liketh_ him best." They were strictly charged not to put him in a condition which he did not _choose_. Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming into Israel of his own accord, had been _dragged_ in by some kidnapper who _bought_ him of his master, and _forced_ him into a condition against his will. Would He who forbade such treatment of the stranger, who _voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the _same_ treatment of the _same person_, provided in _addition_ to this last outrage, the _previous_ one had been committed of _forcing him into the nation against his will_?

To commit violence on the free choice of a _foreign_ servant is a horrible enormity, forsooth, PROVIDED you _begin_ the violence _after_ he has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_, on the _other side of the line_; if you _begin_ the outrage by buying him from a third person _against his will_, and then tear him from home, and drag him across the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave--ah!

that alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence now with impunity! Would _greater_ favor have been shown to this new comer from the heathen than to the old residents--those who had been servants in Jewish families perhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commanded to exercise toward _him_, uncirc.u.mcised and _out_ of the covenant, a justice and kindness denied to the mult.i.tude, who _were_ circ.u.mcised, and _within_ the covenant?

Again: the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition against their wills--the objector finds small gain to his argument. In that case, the surrounding nations would of course adopt retaliatory measures, and resolve themselves into so many asylums for fugitive Israelitish servants. As these nations were on every side of them such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men held in a condition which was a constant _counteraction of will_. Further, the objector's a.s.sumption destroys itself; for the same command which protected the foreign servant from the power of his _master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was not merely, "Thou shalt not deliver him to his _master_," but "he (the servant) shall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best." Every Israelite was commanded to respect his free choice, and to put him in no condition _against his will_. What was this but a proclamation, that all who _chose_ to live in the land and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to dispose of their services at such a rate, to such persons, and in such places as they pleased?

Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of _foreign_ servants merely, was the any law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from the _Israelites_? There was a statute requiring the return of _property_ lost, and _cattle_ escaped, but none requiring the return of escaped _servants_.

Finally, these verses contain, _first_, a command, "Thou shalt not deliver," &c. _Secondly_, a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free choice_, and of G.o.d's will that he should exercise it at his own discretion; and _thirdly_, a command guarding this right, namely, "Thou shalt not oppress him," as though G.o.d had said, If you forbid him to exercise his _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his residence, it is _oppression_, and I will not tolerate it.

3. _We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar opportunities and facilities for escape_. Three times every year, all the males over twelve years of age, were required to attend the public festivals. The main body were thus absent from their homes not less than three weeks each time, making nine weeks annually. As these caravans moved over the country, were there military scouts lining the way, to intercept deserters?--a corporal's guard stationed at each pa.s.s of the mountains, sentinels pacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring the defiles? What safe contrivance had the Israelites for taking their _"slaves"_ three times in a year to Jerusalem and back? When a body of slaves is moved any distance in our free and equal _republic_, they are handcuffed to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers'

brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an improvement left for the wisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venerable and biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and transported in bundles, or caged up, and trundled on wheels to and fro, and while at the Holy City, "lodged in jail for safe keeping," religions services _extra_ being appointed, and special "ORAL instruction" for their benefit. But meanwhile, what became of the st.u.r.dy _handmaids_ left at home? What hindered them from marching off in a body? Perhaps the Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, to pick up stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets as city guards, keeping a sharp look-out at night.

4. _Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance of various rites and ceremonies necessarily_ VOLUNTARY.

Suppose a servant from the heathen should, upon entering a Jewish family, refuse circ.u.mcision; the question whether he shall remain a servant, is in his own hands. If a _slave_, how simple the process of emanc.i.p.ation! His _refusal_ did the job. Or, suppose that, at any time, he should refuse to attend the tri-yearly feasts, or should eat leavened bread during the Pa.s.sover, or compound the ingredients of the anointing oil, he is "cut off from the people;" _excommunicated_.

5. _We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs from the impossibility of their being held against their wills._ The servants of Abraham are an ill.u.s.tration. At one time he had three hundred and eighteen _young men_ "born in his house," and probably many more _not_ born in his house. The whole number of his servants of all ages, was probably MANY THOUSANDS. Doubtless, Abraham was a man of a million, and Sarah too, a right notable housekeeper; still, it is not easy to conceive how they contrived to hold so many thousand servants against their wills, unless the patriarch and his wife _took turns_ in performing the Hibernian exploit of surrounding them! The neighboring tribes, instead of const.i.tuting a picket guard to hem in his servants, would have been far more likely to sweep them and him into captivity, as they did Lot and his household. Besides, Abraham had neither "Const.i.tution," nor "compact," nor statutes, nor judicial officers to send back his fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce upon panic-stricken women, nor gentleman-kidnappers, suing for patronage, volunteering to howl on the track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging their "honor" to hunt down and "deliver up," _provided_ they had a description of the "flesh marks," and were stimulated in their chivalry by _pieces of silver_. Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient in all the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand cuffs, foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His dest.i.tution of these patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, when we consider his faithful discharge of responsibilities to his household, though so deplorably dest.i.tute of the needful aids.