It has been proved in a series of arguments that the Bible condemns slavery; yet some may contend that other portions of the sacred volume justify the principle of slavery, and tolerate the practice of slave-holding. This cannot be true; if any portion of the Bible, really condemns slavery, no other portion can justify it, without an obvious self-impeachment of the record. No doubt, most persons, on a candid perusal of the arguments in support of the position that the Bible condemns slavery, will judge them of sufficient strength in themselves to settle the question, and warrant the conclusion that no part of the Bible can justify slavery; yet as some who profess to believe the scriptures, contend for slavery, jure divina, and as others who may never be able to believe slavery right, may be confused and perplexed by pro-slavery assumptions and glosses, it is deemed proper to attempt an examination of those portions of the Bible which have been considered the stronghold of slavery, and see if the monster sin cannot be driven from within the lids of the sacred volume.
This undertaking is of more importance than may be supposed by some, at first sight, for so long as there is a lingering suspicion that slavery finds any shelter in the Bible, the public conscience can never be roused fully to feel its enormity. Notwithstanding, there may be much infidelity and skepticism in the land, it is a fact that the Bible is generally felt to be the standard, by which the right or wrong of human conduct must be tested. The almost universal circulation of the Scriptures, the fact that all the truly religious and prayerful hold them to be given by inspiration of God, and the manner in which they are appealed to by all successful debaters in our legislative halls, proves how strong a hold they have upon the public confidence. It is true, there are a few persons who openly repudiate the Scriptures, and represent them as teaching almost every wicked and corrupt thing, and slavery among the rest, not to justify slavery, but to condemn the Bible. The writer has met with a few persons, who contended that the Bible is a pro-slavery book, as a means of rendering the Scriptures contemptible. But such are very few, and frequent developments have proved that men who profess to disbelieve the Scriptures, and who treat them with contempt, often do it in violation of their own convictions of right. While they rail against the Bible, they have an internal and often illy suppressed conviction, that it is the word of God, and that they must be judged by it. It appears safe to conclude, that even the infidel feels more at ease in the practice of slavery, while he is made to believe that the Scriptures justify his conduct, than when he is convinced that the Bible is against him. How important is it then, to examine the subject, and cut slavery off from all claim to support from the sacred volume? Let it be felt that nothing like slavery was tolerated by the law of Moses, and let all be made to feel there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ to justify slavery, that slave catchers are not following the example of St. Paul, and that no example of slave-holding can be traced out in the history of the Apostolic Church, and all who mean to be Christians, will not only abandon it, but oppose it as they oppose any other sin. There is too much light, and too great a love of consistency, for any class of men, long to justify the practice of slave-holding, after they are constrained to admit that it is a crime against God. The conclusion is so undeniable that if men may practice one great sin, they may practice any and every great sin, as interest or inclination may dictate, that but few if any will occupy the position who admit that there is a difference between right and wrong. It is only necessary then to drive slavery from the Bible, expel it from the pulpit, and chase it from the altars of religion, and it will find but little quarter in the world.
The Bible does not and cannot be made to justify slavery in practice, even if the principle of slavery be found in it, for want of a specific rule to govern the application of the principle in reducing it to practice. If the Bible justifies slavery, it must be as a general principle, without restriction in regard to the persons or classes to whom pertains the rights of slavery, on one hand, and the obligations of slavery on the other; or it must be in view of some specific rule which defines who shall be the master and who shall be the slave. If the Bible does not justify slavery in one or the other of these aspects, it does not and cannot justify it in any sense. On the first of these positions but little need be said. But few if any will contend that slavery is right as a general principle, without reference to race, class, condition or distinction of persons, who possess the right to hold slaves, and upon whom rests the obligation to submit to slavery. If slavery be right, as a general principle, in the absence of a specific rule, defining who shall be the master and who shall be the slave, every man must be at liberty to enslave whom he can. To insist that slavery is right in the absence of any specific divine law, which clearly defines who shall be the master and who shall be the slave, is to say that the right to hold slaves is inherent in all men, and that each man is at liberty to exercise the right whenever he finds himself in possession of the power to seize upon, hold and control his fellow being. It is also to say that the obligation to submit to be a slave, pertains equally to all men, and that each is bound to respond to it the moment a hand is laid upon him sufficiently strong to hold him. If this be so, a man can have a right to liberty only so long as he possesses sufficient power to maintain it against all aggression. This makes right depend upon might. For a man to contend that slavery is or can be right upon such a principle, is to say that it would be right to make him a slave, if a party could be found, possessing the requisite power. But the thing is too absurd to need a refutation. All acts and conditions are determined to be right or wrong by some rule or law, which relates to the subject. In this case the Bible is that rule or law for the question is, does the Bible justify slavery? The rule must then be produced from the Bible, and it must be so clear and specific as to determine who shall be the slave and who the master. Suppose the Bible said, One man may hold his fellow man as a slave; one man can acquire the right of property in his fellow-man; it could not justify slaveholding in any given case, unless it should at the same time point out the person who might hold slaves, and the persons whom he might hold. A man, with his Bible in one hand, lays his other hand upon his fellow, and says, you are my slave. Not so fast, says the other; where is your authority for claiming me as a slave? The first, opening his Bible reads the text which affirms that man can hold property in man, supposing there were such a text. The other replies, the law does not name you sir, as the man owner, nor me as the man owned; if it justifies slave owning and holding, it will as clearly justify me in owning and holding you, as it will you in holding me. There is no way to settle the dispute but by the law of force, the stronger will prove himself to be the slaveholder.
There can then be no sanction of slavery found in the Bible, in the absence of a specific rule, defining clearly and certainly who shall be the master and who shall be the slave, and appropriating to one his rights, and to the other his obligations. Now it is denied that any such rule exists, and it is believed that no sane mind will attempt to point out such a rule upon the sacred page. It is proposed to examine the several texts supposed to support slavery, in which examination, two points will be kept distinctly in view; first none of the texts furnish the above rule; and secondly, they do not even sanction the principle of American slavery.
I. The curse that was pronounced upon Canaan is the oldest bill of rights slaveholders are wont to plead.106
"Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall be unto his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant." Gen. ix, 25, 26.
If I had not heard Rev. Divines quote the above curse pronounced upon Canaan, in support of slavery, I should never have thought of replying to arguments founded upon it. As it is, I reply as follows:—
1. The colored race which are the victims of slavery in this country, are not the descendants of cursed Canaan. It must be admitted by all, that the curse did not fall upon Canaan in his own person, but that it was prophetic of the condition of the descendants of Canaan, and on them alone; if, therefore, the colored race are not the descendants of Canaan, it cannot justify their enslavement. The colored race have descended from Ham, through Cush, and not through Canaan. The name, Ham, signifies heat, hot, brown; and the name Cush, signifies black; while Canaan, signifies a merchant, or trader. When it is considered that Hebrew names were descriptive of actions, quality or character, and that they were often prophetically given, there is force in these names as above defined.
It is further proved that the colored race are not the descendants of cursed Canaan, by the only history we have of the family of Noah. The descendants of Canaan first settled the following countries, as is recorded, Genesis x, 15-19.
"And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite; and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar unto Gaza, as thou goest unto Sodom and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboiim, even unto Lasha."
This clearly points out the nations that were dispossessed by the Israelites, when they came out of Egypt and took possession of the Land of Canaan; and in this transaction was fulfilled the curse pronounced upon Canaan. The curse pronounced upon Canaan, and the blessing pronounced upon Shem, were prophetic.
"Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan, shall be his servant." The Israelites descended from Shem, and the Canaanites, embracing the several nations named as the Girgashites, the Hivites, &c., descended from Canaan, and when the Israelites came out of Egypt, they drove out the Canaanites, destroyed some of them and made servants of others, and they possessed their land, and thus was this prophetic curse accomplished. How plain is all this, and how forced and unreasonable must be the construction which makes it a justification for American slavery.
The Cushites, the other branch of Ham's family, from whom descended the colored race, settled another section of the country. Like the Canaanites, they were a seafaring people, and sooner arrived at civilization than did the other branches of Noah's family. The first great empires of Assyria and Egypt were founded by them, as were also the republics of Sidon, Tyre and Carthage. Our colored race are the descendants of the people who founded and sustained those early empires and republics. But the point in this argument is, the race now in slavery, are not the descendants of Canaan, upon whom the curse of servitude was pronounced, and, of course, that curse is no justification of slavery as now existing.
2. The present slaveholding race are not the descendants of Shem, to whom was appropriated the service of Canaan. "Canaan shall be his servant;" not the servant of some other race. If the text authorizes any thing, it authorizes the descendants of Shem to use the service of the descendants of Canaan; it does not authorize any other race to enslave them; nor does it authorize the Canaanites to enslave each other. Who then are the present race of slaveholders? Are they Shemites? It cannot be proved. The Jews and the Arabs or Ishmaelites, are the only people on the face of the earth who can with any certainty claim to have descended from Shem. The slaveholders of this country are more likely to be the descendants of poor Canaan who was cursed. The Canaanites were not all destroyed by the Israelites: indeed they left many nations unsubdued, and were mingled with them and were corrupted by them. Repeated and bloody wars raged between them for many centuries. Where are the descendants of these nations now? I answer as follows:—
The people called Canaanites in the Scriptures, are known in history by the name of Phoenicians, and it is said of them that they began to colonize in the time of the Hebrew Judges, and their first settlements were Cyprus and Rhodes; thence they pushed into Greece, Sicily, Sardinia and Spain. See Taylor's History. It is then probable that the Anglo-Saxon race came originally from the Canaanites or Phoenicians of profane history, and these are the people upon whom the curse was pronounced.
This presents slaveholders as taking advantage of a curse pronounced upon themselves, as a justification for enslaving another race.
3. Waive the facts set forth above, and admit that the curse imposes slavery, and that it involves the colored race, and still consequences will follow sufficient to overthrow the whole argument built upon it in support of American slavery.
(1.) In such case it would justify enslaving the whole race. If the argument proves it right to enslave any part of the race, it proves it right to enslave the whole. It would be right, therefore, to enslave every free colored person in this land, and in every other land; it must be right to plunder Africa of all her sons and daughters until the last descendant of Ham is chattelized.
(2.) It must follow that this nation is fighting against God, and legislating against the fulfillment of divine prophecy.
If the whole race were devoted to perpetual slavery by a judicial act of Jehovah,—and the whole were thus devoted if any were,—why does this nation find fault by declaring that it is piracy upon the high seas to fulfill that supposed judicial decree of Jehovah. She has done it in a law of Congress, which declares that to bring a slave from Africa shall be judged piracy and punished by death.
Has this nation conspired with England to defeat the decrees of God, punishing with death those who do what he has made it right for them to do?
(3.) The argument, if allowed, would not justify American slavery, as it is not now confined to the colored race; there are mixed and white slaves. The argument would justify the enslavement of none but the descendants of Canaan, if they were the colored race, which is not the fact.
But whose descendants are the mixed breed? One third of all the slaves in this country have Anglo-Saxon blood in their veins, and many of them are as white as the fairest of the white. Others have descended from Indians. Are these the children of Canaan upon the assumptions of the arguments? And does the curse pronounced upon Canaan include their enslavement?
(4.) This view of the subject, if allowed, would subvert all the support for slavery, attempted to be derived from the New Testament. The New Testament argument rests upon the assumed fact that slavery existed where Jesus Christ and his apostles preached and founded Christian churches, and that it was not condemned by them, but that persons were allowed to hold their slaves after being converted and received into the church. The reply to all this is, that if slavery existed where those churches were planted, to whom the epistles were addressed, it was not the slavery of the African race, for that did not then exist, and consequently, their sanction was not based upon the curse pronounced upon Canaan. If slavery be right independently of the curse pronounced upon Canaan, as must be the case if the apostles sanctioned the slavery of their time and place, the right of it must depend upon something besides that curse, and to contend that slavery is right independently of the curse pronounced upon Canaan, is to abandon that as a ground on which to justify human bondage.
4. It was not American slavery nor yet any thing like it, that the posterity of Canaan was subjected to by the curse pronounced upon a hapless father. The curse was political subjection, political servitude, and not chattel slavery. It was shown under the first division of this argument, that the prediction was fulfilled in the overthrow of the Canaanites by the Israelites, who were the Shemites when they came out of Egypt, and none of these transactions were analogous to American slavery, nor can they be plead as a justification of the system. The Gibeonites were made hewers of wood and drawers of water, but this was not chattel slavery. It was public service; no Israelite owned one of them, nor had he any personal interest in one of them, and they were still personally free, possessing their own lands, living in their own city, occupying their own houses, and possessing their own wives and husbands, and children. See the transaction as recorded Joshua ix. 3-27. They still existed and flourished in the days of David, as may be seen by reference to 2 Sam. xxi, 1-6. From this last reference, it is seen that these Gibeonites were flourishing in possession of political rights, with power to make their own treaty with the King of the Israelites. This proves that they were not the subjects of chattel slavery after the American pattern, and it follows that the curse pronounced upon Canaan was not such slavery.
It has now been shown first, that the victims of American slavery are not the descendants of Canaan; secondly, that the present race of slave-holders are not the descendants of them, in whose favor the curse of servitude was pronounced upon Canaan; thirdly, that consequences would follow, if the above points were yielded, which would be fatal to American slavery as it exists; and fourthly, that the curse pronounced upon Canaan, did not involve chattel slavery or any thing analogous to it. In the face of these points so clearly established, slavery must seek elsewhere for a sanction, or withdraw its claim for scriptural support.