The Bible no Refuge for Slavery.
(Continued.)
ARGUMENT THIRD.
Slavery conflicts with those social relations and duties which not only spring from our social nature, but which God has also enjoined by positive enactment.
MAN is a social being, and has received a social nature from the hand which formed him; which seeks intercourse, sympathy, and reciprocal enjoyments from kindred spirits. The various relations into which we are thrown by the current of our social nature, have been provided for by God in his word, where he has prescribed the circumstances, conditions and obligations of our social and domestic relations, and has thrown around them the protection of his law. We will commence with the institution of marriage. This of course was provided for by the hand of God when he originally created man, and is the first institution in the chain of social relations; first in the order of nature, and first in the order of the positive institutions of the divine law. Matt. xix, 4–6. "Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh? What therefore God hath joined together let no man put asunder." Heb. xiii. "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." On these texts it may be remarked, that God obviously designed marriage for all nations, races and classes of men. To say that God does not require marriage on the part of the African race, would be to say that he designs the extinction of the race, for all such perpetuation of the race out of wedlock is condemned and denounced by God himself. We are now prepared to show wherein slavery conflicts with the institution, and rights and obligations of marriage. 1. The right of property in man is inconsistent with the rights of the parties who lawfully enter into the marriage relation. The husband has a monopoly of right in his wife. A wife belongs to her husband, in a sense which renders it impossible that she should be the property of another at the same time; if she is the wife of one, she cannot be the property of another; if she is the property of one she cannot be the wife of another. It is impossible from the nature of the two things that a woman should hold out the attributes of a wife to one man, and the attributes of property to another, at the same time. The husband has an exclusive right in his wife, and the owner has an exclusive right in his property; hence, a woman cannot sustain the relation of a wife to one man, and the relation of property to another. The husband has not only an exclusive claim to the affections of her heart, but also to her time and attention; what power she possesses to promote the happiness of another belongs to him, and she has, as a wife, no right to seek the happiness of others beyond what is consistent with his happiness; her happiness should be his and his should be hers; they are partners in both joy and sorrow; "they are no more twain but one flesh." The right of property includes the right of controlling, using, and disposing of such property for the promotion of the happiness of the owner; hence, two persons cannot possess, the one the rights of a husband and the other the rights of property in the same woman at the same time. In the same manner the rights of the wife forever forbid the right of property in the husband. The man is not alone in securing rights to himself when he enters the marriage relation; corresponding to his rights are the rights of the wife; if they are not in every respect the same, they are nevertheless equal in number and importance. The husband is bound no less to devote himself for the promotion of the happiness of the wife than she is to promote his happiness. This right of the wife to the love, the protection, the support, and entire devotedness of the husband to promote her happiness must forever preclude the right of property to such husband vesting itself in the hands of another. 2. The right of property in man is inconsistent with the obligations resting upon the parties to the marriage relations. Rights and obligations are always reciprocal; hence, in treating of the rights of the parties, the corresponding obligations have been implied, but we wish to bring them out a little more distinctly. The right of the husband to the due regard and proper submission of the wife, involves an obligation on her part to render these things; the right of the wife to the love and protection of the husband, involves an obligation on his part to love and protect her. We will now present a few plain declarations of scripture on this subject, and see how effectually they overthrow the assumed right of property in man. 1 Cor. vii, 2. "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." The system of property in man, making them personal chattels, to be bought and sold in the market, cannot be reconciled with the above text. To let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband, in the apostle's sense, would overthrow the whole system of slavery. Eph. v, 21. "Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body." Can wives who are the personal chattels of men not their husbands, comply with the above text? When the husband is sent to one market and the wife to another, can the wife obey the scriptures? Can the wife who is in the power, the absolute power of a man who is not her husband, and who can enforce his will in all things without let or hindrance by flattery, bribes, strength, prisons, whips and tortures; can such a wife submit herself to her husband as unto the Lord? and can a husband, who is under the same absolute control of another, be the head of such a wife, as Christ is the head of the church? Answer, common sense! 1 Cor. vii, 10. "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband?" Is it consistent with this text for one man to sell another man's wife, or to buy another man's wife, and drive her off in chains, to see her husband no more? It cannot be. If the wife has not a right to depart, then no other person can have a right to force her to depart. No person can have a right to compel another to do what such person has not a right to do without being compelled. A wife has no power to depart from her husband, and therefore no person can have a right to sell her, to buy and drive her away from her husband; and hence the right of property in husbands and wives cannot exist. Eph. v, 28. "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church?" 1 Pet. iii, 7. "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." How can a man, who may be sold and driven away at any moment, be under obligation to dwell with his wife? We will not multiply quotations or remarks; enough has been said to show that slavery and the marriage institution cannot exist together. Slavery takes away the power of the wife to preserve her own purity, and this is true of married and unmarried females. The female that is made an article of property, cannot call her purity her own; it may be taken from her at the pleasure of her owner. He may violate her at pleasure, and she has neither the right or the power to resist. He may tie her up with cords; he may confine her in any way he pleases; he may apply the lash to her cringing back to any extent he pleases; and all this he may do before the face of the man she82may call her husband, and no one bond or free, has any right to interfere; and in so doing he violates no law but the law of God, with which slavery has nothing to do more than to set it at nought. All this follows of necessity, from the admission of the right of property in human beings. Note, the argument is not that all slaveholders actually commit these wrongs on the marriage institution and on female purity, but the argument is that the system of slavery gives every slaveholder the power to do it at pleasure, and with perfect impunity; and that this is inseparable from the system itself; and that the system which lays the heaven-ordained institution of marriage, and heaven-protected female virtue in the dust, helpless at the feet of the spoiler, for the riot and triumph of the baser passions of human nature, cannot be right, but must be wrong now and forever. To settle the question, we say that matrimony exists among slaves or it does not.—The one or the other of these positions must be true. Which is true we care not, so far as this argument is concerned. 1. If matrimony does exist in moral right among slaves, the parties are joined together by God, and Christ says, 'what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' But slavery does sunder them, and the right of property includes the right of sundering them. If therefore slaves are married in moral right, slavery is guilty of parting those whom God had joined together, and drags after it the crime of adultery. The slave system separates the parties and joins them in other connections, so that in a few years a man may have several wives, and the same woman several husbands, and all living at the same time. 2. If slaves are not married in moral right, as they are not and cannot be in the eyes of the civil law, slavery stands charged with breaking up this heaven-appointed institution, and of involving the slave population in the crime of general whoredom. There is so far as we can see, no way to escape these conclusions; if the advocate of slavery allows that slaves are brought within the marriage institution, he assumes that the power to separate those whom God hath joined together can rightfully exist; a thing, in our view, impossible. If he admits that slaves are not brought within the marriage institution, he assumes the rightfulness of general sexual intercourse without the bans of matrimony. Such is slavery, consisting in the assumed right of property in human beings, wherever it is found, in the church or out of the church. We speak as to wise men; judge of what we say. Slavery further conflicts with those social relations and duties which not only spring from our social nature, but which God has also enjoined by positive enactment by subverting the rights and obligations which grow out of relations subsisting between parents and children.
That there are rights and obligations connected with this relation, around which God has thrown the protection of his law, armed with the arrows of his lightnings, and the voice of his thunders, cannot be denied; and that slavery disregards them and tramples them under foot, if not admitted shall be proved. When God descended upon Mount Sinai and gave his law amid the dreadful lightnings that blazed and glared, and shot their fiery arrows athwart the smoke and gloom that mantled the Eternal upon the mount, and amid the thunders that bellowed terrors and poured the voice of condemnation in the ear of sin; he then wrote with his own finger upon a table of stone, as the fifth of the ten commandments, the following words: "Honor thy father and mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." The duty of the child to honor his father and mother, clearly implies the obligation of the parents so to teach and so to behave toward the child, as is calculated to inspire the feelings and write upon the heart of the child what God wrote in the book of his law. This sentiment is clearly brought out in the comment of St. Paul. Eph. vi, 1–4. "Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right. Honor thy father and mother which is the first commandment with promise, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And ye, fathers provoke not your children to wrath; but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Here we have the obligation growing out of the relation that subsists between parents and children, as defined by the Spirit of inspiration; and that slavery necessarily wars upon, and entirely subverts these obligations, is all that remains to be proved, and this is so plain and obvious that it is like proving what is self-evident. 1. Can parents, who are subject to all the liabilities of property, and whose children are also property in the same full sense, bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? This cannot be pretended. Some are torn away from the embrace of their father, and removed forever from the sight of his eye; daughters are borne in chains from the throbbing, heaving bosoms and bleeding hearts of their mothers. "Where no mother's ear can hear them,
Where no mother's eye can see them." Slavery which assumes the right of property in man, in fathers and mothers, and mothers and children, takes from the parents all right of control over their children, and hence, it violates the divine law, for that commands them to control them for good. God says to parents, "bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;" but slavery says, No, you cannot have the right of bringing them up, or if you do, you must bring them up for the market, bring them up for me, that I may sacrifice your sons upon the altar of my avarice, and your daughters upon the altar of my lust. Can children who are "personal chattels to all intents and purposes and constructions whatsoever," honor their fathers and mothers? Can they "obey their parents in the Lord?" Most certainly not. The son looks not, cannot look to his father, if father he knows, for authority and direction during the years of his minority; nor can he honor, comfort, and support that father in his declining years, after the son has come to the riper years of manhood. The daughter cannot obey her own mother in childhood and youth, much less can she honor and cherish her in riper years; she must see her mother, if she be allowed to see her at all, languish, faint and die under the effects of toil, hunger and the lash, without dropping a word of consolation in her ear, or extending a daughter's hand to her relief,—all this is true of the daughter, concerning her who in anguish gave her being, and sheltered her in her bosom during the cloudy morning of her existence, and nourished her upon the milk of toil and weariness until she was strong enough to endure life's heavier storms. That all this is wicked, it would be an insult to common sense to attempt to prove. It directly violates and sets aside as plain a command as there is in the book of God, and if this is not sin, the ten commandments may all be violated without sin. Should it be said in reply to this, that under the circumstances, the parents are released from the obligation to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and children are released from the obligation to obey their parents in the Lord, as God's law does not require impossibilities; we respond, that God's law can never be annihilated or nullified in its claims. It is and must forever be, binding in some form; and if the above circumstances exempt parents and children from the obligation to obey God's law, or rather from the penalty of the law, for it is not obeyed, the guilt rests upon those who are the authors of such circumstances. If a man who is stronger than we, put fetters upon us so that we cannot do what God has commanded us to do, God will not it is true, hold us responsible; but he will hold that man responsible who puts the fetters upon us for the non-performance of all that duty, of which he has been the cause. When the slaveholder steps in between God and the slave, and between parents and children, to prevent the discharge of the duties which God commands them as parents and children to discharge toward each other, he takes the place of both parents and child, and assumes before God the responsibility of the non-performance of the duty of both, for which God will hold him responsible. This argument might be greatly extended, and the terrible consequences to society, resulting from a dissolution of all social relations and ties, might be dwelt upon, but it is not necessary. The simple fact that it conflicts with the specific commands of God secures all that is to be gained by the argument. The Bible condemns slavery under the name of man-stealing.
It would be a waste of time to attempt to prove that man-stealing is a crime. It is universally admitted that all stealing is wrong, and it follows that man-stealing is the most sinful of all theft. It cannot be maintained that to steal the horse under the rider would be a sin, while to steal the rider off the horse would be a justifiable act. That man-stealing is condemned in the Bible will not be denied. Ex. xxi, 16. "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, shall surely be put to death." St. Paul tells us, 1 Tim. i, 10. that the law of God "is made for men-stealers." The only question about which there can be any dispute is this; is American slavery, as it now exists, man-stealing? 1. American slavery had its origin in man-stealing. 1. The facts, as generally understood, are such as to stamp the whole business of the foreign slave-trade with the odious name of man-stealing. No matter who was engaged in it, saint or devil, it was nevertheless man-stealing. The business commenced by stealing such persons as they could catch along the coast, and force away from country, home and friends, to live, suffer and die in bondage among strangers. When the increasing market could not be supplied in this way, other means were resorted to. The kidnappers would land for the purposes of trade, and while trading, would pour out to their unsuspecting customers the intoxicating drink, who, not being acquainted with the power of ardent spirit, would soon become helpless, and then while drunk the pale-faced demons would secure them. When they awoke from their drunkenness, they found themselves, not like Noah under the protection of affectionate sons, but in chains and in the hell of a slave ship. But at last, to supply the increasing demand, war was resorted to, which was no less man-stealing. The wars, it should be understood, were commenced for the express purpose of obtaining slaves, hence, it was stealing on a larger scale. If two men go and take one, it is stealing; if ten go and take five, it is stealing; if one hundred go and take fifty, it is stealing; and if one thousand go and take five hundred, it is no less man-stealing. 2. The law of our country deems it man-stealing. It is pronounced piracy, and punished by death by the laws of the United States. It is no more morally wrong now, than when it was tolerated: hence, it was always wrong. 3. The present race or generation of slaves can be held by no better title or authority than that by which their fathers and mothers were held. They were originally stolen, and of course, there was no valid title to them; if, therefore, there is now a title to those bondmen and bond-women, it has been obtained or originated since their fathers and mothers were stolen. We demand at what period in the dark history of slavery, this supposed title to these human beings began to exist. As there was no title at first, they being stolen, it follows that there can be no title now, that they are stolen persons still, unless it can be shown when, under what circumstances, and upon what principles the title originated, and began to exist. By the law of slavery, the condition of the offspring follows the condition of the mother. Let us then suppose, which is the fact in the case,—some men-stealers, for whom the law of God was made, went to Africa, and stole a helpless female. Had he any right or title to her? Certainly not. The next step in this infamous business was, the man-thief sold this stolen female to a Southern planter. Had the planter any title to her? Certainly not; for he could have none only what he bought; and he could buy none only what the thief had to sell; and he had no title to sell, and therefore he could sell none; and therefore the planter could buy none of him; and therefore the planter could have no title. This is all just as certain as it is that one man cannot communicate to another what he has not got. As the thief had no title to his stolen83victim, he could communicate no title to the man to whom he sold. The third step in the progress of slavery is, this enslaved female had offspring in her bonds. Had the planter, who held her without title, a title to her child as his property? Slavery itself does not pretend to any title to the children which is not founded upon a supposed title to the mother; hence, as there was no title to the mother, there can be none to the child. As the mother was a stolen person in his hands, so is the child a stolen person in his hands if he restrains it as his property. Slavery, therefore, is man-stealing and must remain man-stealing so long as it shall be continued. It can make no difference in moral principle, from what particular place we steal a human being, whether from Africa or in America. Now, it appears, from the boasted chart of the nation's rights, that every child, born in this land, has an inalienable right to liberty, as much as children now born in Africa or in any other country. Where, then is the difference in moral principle, whether we go to Africa and take a child, and bring it here for a slave, or take one born here? The child, born of the enslaved mother of South Carolina, has the same inalienable right to liberty, the gift of God, as the child born in Africa. Where is the justice? Where is the consistency? If the law of the nation, which declares that he who brings children from Africa to make slaves of them, shall be hanged as a pirate upon the high seas, be right, then he who takes children born in this land, and holds them as property and as slaves, ought to be hanged as a land pirate; for the one has the same inalienable right to liberty as the other. To invalidate these arguments, we must deny the truth of the Declaration of American Independence, we must disprove the unity of human nature, that "God has made of one blood all nations of men," equal in natural rights; and we must falsify the universal conviction of mankind, which each feels, that he was born free, and has a right to himself. We will close this argument by saying that American slavery is essentially man-stealing; that the Bible condemns man-stealing, and therefore the Bible condemns slavery.