The Bible no Refuge for Slavery.
II. THE example of Abraham, and other patriarchs, is the next resort of slaveholders to obtain a sanction of American slavery. In discussing this claim of the advocates of slavery, I shall confine myself principally to Abraham, as his case will prove decisive for or against slavery. As to the conduct of Laban, in selling his daughters to Jacob, and in giving them Zilpah and Bilbah to be their handmaids, no effort is necessary to prove that there was nothing analogous to American slavery involved in the transactions. If it were clearly slavery itself, it would not prove that, or any other slavery to be morally right, since the transactions lack the endorsement of heaven. The transactions are recorded as facts transpiring in the life of Jacob, but there is no endorsement of the character or conduct of Laban, and his conduct cannot be plead as an example to be followed, or as a justification of any system or practice. The same is true of much of the historical part of the Bible. But in the case of Abraham, the subject wears a different aspect, as he is clearly presented as a representative man, an example to be followed, and the friend of God. If it could be clearly proved that such a man was a slaveholder, it might have the appearance of an endorsement of slavery. Now what are the facts? They are as follows:—"He had sheep and oxen, and he had asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses and camels." Gen. xii, 16. "And when Abraham heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen." Gen. xiv, 14. "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations, he that is born in thy house, or bought with thy money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised." Gen. xvii, 12-13. "And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and women-servants, and gave them to Abraham." Gen. xx, 14. We have now before us all the essential proof that Abraham was a slaveholder, for if the above texts do not prove it, it is not proved by any other circumstance that may be mentioned in his history; as the transactions in the case of Hagar, Gen. xvi, 1-9; and in his swearing of his servant, in relation to procuring a wife for his son Isaac, Gen. xxiv, 1-4. The question is, can there be found in any or all of these facts, the slightest justification of American slavery? No; must be the decisive answer. (1.) It is not found in the word servant, for this is applied to all classes of laborers and dependents. It is not necessary at this point to resort to criticism, but only to show how the word is used generally in the language of those times. Abraham called himself the servant of the three angels that visited him. Gen. xviii, 3. He could not have designed to express the idea of a slave. Lot called himself the servant of the angels which led him out of the city. Gen. xix, 1-9. Jacob called himself the servant of Esau, Gen. xxxiii, 5. But the reverse of this would be true if the word servant meant slave. "And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants." Gen. xxvii, 37. The children of Esau were not given to the children of Jacob as slaves, and servant means only inferiority or political subjection. Pharaoh is said to have made a feast to all his servants, Gen. xl, 20, but it will not be pretended that slaves are intended. Kings do not make feasts to slaves upon their birth days. All subjects were the servants of their kings, and even the highest officers of the army, were, in the language of the times, the servants of the sovereigns; it is plain therefore that the fact that Abraham had servants, does not prove that he was a slaveholder. (2.) The proof that Abraham was a slaveholder is not found in the fact that he had servants bought with his money. In those times all the people were the servants of their petty kings, and persons might be transferred from one prince to another for money, without supposing they were chattel slaves. During the Revolutionary war, the English Government hired an army of Germans, for which they stipulated to pay a given price per head. They were as much bought with King George's money, as Abraham's servants were bought with his money, but they were not chattel slaves. Abraham, possessed of such great wealth as he was, was compelled to have servants, and leading a wandering life, amid hostile nations, it was necessary that he should have servants that were truly attached to him and his interests. To secure such servants, he may have purchased captives, to make them his free attendants, which would attach them to him. This is much more rational than to suppose he could buy them as chattel slaves, and hold them against their will, in his circumstances. (3.) The proof that Abraham was a slaveholder is not found in the fact that he had servants born in his house. Abraham had no house in our use of the word, but dwelt in a tent and led a wandering life. By being born in his house, it meant, born in his family or among his attendants. With attendants enough to take care of his flocks and herds, and to protect, as a guard, his person and great wealth, there must have been many servants born in his house; that is, among his attendants and followers, but where is the proof that they were his personal property, his chattel slaves? (4.) The proof that Abraham was a slaveholder is not found in the fact that he had men-servants and maid-servants given to him by Abimelech, as above quoted. Abimelech gave him sheep and oxen, and as Abraham probably had as many before, as he had servants to watch over, the attendants were transferred, and became Abraham's followers by their own consent; and as they were both kings, it was only a transfer of subjects from one government to another, and not a gift of chattel slaves. It is clear then that there is no proof that Abraham was a slaveholder, but it shall now be shown that there is proof upon the face of the record that he was not a slaveholder in anything like the sense of American slavery. 1. His three hundred and eighteen trained servants which were born in his house, could not have been slaves in the sense of American slavery. Whatever they were, their adherence to Abraham must have been voluntary. They constituted his army, and a brave army were they, under a brave leader, when he led them to the rescue of Lot and the other captives, and slew the armies of four kings, and took the spoils. It is mentioned in particular on this occasion, he armed the three hundred and eighteen trained servants "that were born in his own house." He doubtless had other attendants at this time, but these were taken as more reliable in the hour of danger in a foreign expedition, than those not born in his house, who had more recently joined him. The latter would most naturally be left as a home guard in the absence of the king and the principal army. Had any of them been chattel slaves, how easily could they have walked away? Would a slaveholder of the South presume to arm three hundred slaves and lead them into Canada, to recapture prisoners and goods that had been taken away? Abraham must have pursued those kings not less than a hundred and thirty miles, through a wild country. How easily could his slaves have escaped had they been held against their wills, as our American slaves; and how unsafe would an American slaveholder feel alone in the midst of three hundred armed slaves. Again how easily could those left at home have made their escape in the absence of their master. There were no114patrols then to pick them up, no bloodhounds to pursue and run them down, and no fugitive slave law to carry them back. 2. Abraham said to God, "To me thou hast given no seed: and lo, one born in my house is mine heir." Gen. xv, 3. This was before the birth of Ishmael. Those born in his house then, could not have been slaves or they would not have been his heirs. 3. Once more, Abraham's oldest servant ruled over all that he had, and was charged with the important business of negotiating with his distant kindred for a wife for his son Isaac. The business was committed to him under the solemnities of an oath. Gen. xxiv, 1-5. Was he a slave? Have southern planters slaves that can be trusted, not only with the care of all their estates at home, but who can be sent on a foreign embassy with a train of ten horses, and with jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment, and other precious things? Gen. xxiv, 10, 53. It is perfectly ludicrous to suppose, that persons who were treated with such responsibilities, bore any analogy to southern slaves. It is believed the record has now been purged from every vestige of Abrahamic slavery, and it remains to look after that said to have been established by Moses, the great law-giver under God. III. The Jewish polity as established by Moses, under God, is the final resort of slaveholders to find an endorsement of American slavery within the lids of the Old Testament. That there is much legislation concerning masters and servants, and that servitude, of some sort is tolerated, modified and regulated, it would be vain to deny. But that American slavery is found upon the record, or anything analogous to it, is denied. Before entering upon the examination of those provisions which some suppose involve the principle of chattel slavery, it may be well to state a few general leading principles, which it will be necessary to keep in view during the entire investigation, as having a bearing upon the whole subject, and upon the exposition of each text in particular. 1. The system introduced by Moses, whatever it was in fact, was a great improvement on all former times and organisms. If there are what may be deemed vital evils in the light of the gospel, and which the gospel corrects, they were not introduced by Moses, but are the relics of a more barbarous state of things, which his system did not entirely blot out in its great work of reformation, though it curtailed and mitigated every evil. If any such supposed evil is found, it will be seen, not to have been introduced as a new thing, but to be there by way of a modification of some previously existing evil, the severity of which is averted by legislative restraints and protections. 2. The above remark is peculiarly true and forcible in relation to servitude, as tolerated, limited, and modified by the law of Moses. The law of Moses nowhere introduces a system of servitude as a new thing, or a new element in society, but treats of it as a thing already existing, as an evil to be restrained, and modified. It is not possible for a reflecting mind to read the provisions touching masters and servants, without seeing, lying back of those mild provisions, a more oppressive system, which it corrects, modifies and softens. Take it as it stands upon the record, and in view of the condition of the world, and even the rude state of the Israelites, at the time it was introduced, and it must be admitted to be a most benevolent system, and greatly beneficial to all servile classes. It appears to have been introduced for the exclusive protection and benefit of the servile classes, and not for the benefit of the masters. American Slavery will have to be greatly modified before even as much as this can be said in its favor. 3. When we examine more particularly into the several provisions concerning servitude, we find that every regulation concerning it, is for the protection and benefit of the servant, and not one for the benefit of the master. Not one new right or privilege is bestowed upon the master; he possessed every right, and enjoyed every privilege, before the law was given which he can claim and exercise under it, but it throws around him many restraints, and many protections around the servant, and secures to him many rights and privileges which he would not be likely to enjoy without the law. It is safe therefore to say that the whole system was designed for the benefit of the servile classes, which leaves not a single analogy between it and American slavery, as the legislation which gives it existence, is altogether for the benefit of the master, conferring all legal rights on the master, and taking every legal right away from the slave, leaving the slave without a legal existence, and entirely unknown to the law, only as a personal chattel, only as a sheep or a horse or an ox has a legal existence and is known in law. These remarks, if true, and they most certainly are, must of themselves settle the entire argument, and demonstrate, that no justification can be found in Jewish servitude for American slavery. I might with entire safety rest the argument on these points, but I propose not so to do, but only ask the reader to keep them in view, to carry them along through the investigation, for the sake of the light they will shed on the general subject, and the assistance they will render in coming at a right interpretation of the several texts to be examined. The way is now prepared for an examination of those parts of the Mosaic code which some suppose teach the principle, and justify the practice of American slavery. The method to be pursued is, first, to examine each text by itself, and then inquire into the general bearings of the whole system upon the subject of slavery. It will not be necessary to examine every text in which the word servant occurs, but only such of each class of texts as are regarded as the strongest proofs of the existence of slavery. The first allusion to servitude in the Jewish economy is as follows:—"And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof." Ex. xii, 43-45. This text was not designed to create or justify slavery, if slavery is implied in its language. The most that can be made of it, is that it takes for granted that there will be servants bought with money, and hired servants, without instituting, providing for, or sanctioning either system of service. It does not refer to servitude as a thing to be established by the new system, but as a thing already existing, without bestowing upon it either sanction or censure. It does not necessarily imply the existence of slavery. The only proof that slavery existed, is found in the fact that servants were bought with money. It will not be pretended that hired servants were slaves; we have therefore only to settle the case of servants bought with money. The assumption that servants bought with money were chattel slaves is founded upon the supposition that the language of the Jewish law is to be interpreted by our usages. Their language was not borrowed from our usages, and cannot be safely explained by them. If it were first proved that slavery existed, then it might be safe to infer that the expression, servants bought with money refers to slaves. Such language in a statute in one of our slaveholding States, would doubtless be so construed. It being admitted that such a class as chattel slaves existed, the language might be conclusive evidence that the legislature referred to them; but the question is not to which of two admitted classes does the language refer? but was there any such class as chattel slaves? and on this question the evidence is entirely insufficient. The assumption that there was such a class, is necessary to justify such a construction of the law, and this very construction of the law, is the only proof there was such a class. This is arguing in a circle; it is assuming the main proposition to be proved, and then offering in proof of that proposition a conclusion drawn from the assumption. The language, "servant bought with thy money," cannot prove that a chattel slave is meant, only upon the supposition that no person can be bought with money, without being a chattel slave, which is false upon the very face of the record. It is only necessary to show that things and persons were bought with money, without becoming subject to the incidents of property or chattel slavery, to settle the whole question so far as the meaning of buy and bought is concerned. The word buy, in scripture language, means to get, gain, acquire, obtain, possess; and when bought with money is the expression, it denotes merely the means by which the thing was obtained. A few quotations will settle this question. 1. The Jews bought and sold their lands for money, which lands were not, and could not be permanently alienated by such sale and purchase. They might be redeemed at any time, and if not redeemed, they must revert at the Jubilee. The price was to be according to the number of years before the Jubilee, when lands were sold and bought, as the following text shows:— "And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbor, or buyest aught of thy neighbor's hand, ye shall not oppress one another:" "According to the number of years after the Jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbor, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:" "According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee." Lev. xxv, 14-16. The land was sold and bought for money, and yet no title was given or obtained to it, but only a limited possession. That possession might be for one, five, or ten years or more, as the sale was distant from the time of the Jubilee. In Scripture language it was buying and selling, yet in our language, it was no sale, but a lease for a term of years. If then land could be bought for money, without acquiring the right of property, but only the right of possession and increase for a time; it follows that men could be bought for money without acquiring in them the right of property, but only a right to their labor. A man gave another possession of his land, with the right of all the increase for a given number of years, when it must return to him, and this is called selling and buying it, in Scripture language. So a man agrees to serve another for a valuable consideration, paid to him in advance, and in Scripture language he is said to sell himself, and the other is said to buy him. If land could be bought for money, without obtaining the right of property in it, men could be bought for money without acquiring the right of property in them. If land could be bought for money without subjecting it to all the incidents and liabilities of land bought for money under the laws of the United States, then men could be bought for money, without subjecting them to all the incidents and liabilities of men bought for money under the laws of the slave States of this country. The conclusion is perfectly clear that the simple fact that servants are said to have been bought with money, does not prove that they were chattel slaves.