Is Slavery Sanctioned by the Bible? Part 1

Is Slavery Sanctioned by the Bible?

by Isaac Allen.

If there is one subject which, above all others, may be regarded as of national interest at the present time, it is the subject of Slavery.

Wherever we go, north or south, east or west, at the fireside, in the factory, the rail-car or the steamboat, in the state legislatures or the national Congress, this "ghost that will not down" obtrudes itself. The strife has involved press, pulpit, and forum alike, and in spite of all compromises by political parties, and the desperate attempts at non-committal by religious bodies, it only grows wider and deeper.

But the distinctive feature of this, as compared with other questions of national import, is, that here both parties draw their princ.i.p.al arguments from the Bible as a common armory of weapons for attack and defense. On the one side, it is claimed that slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil; that it is an innocent and lawful relation, as much as that of parent and child, husband and wife, or any other in society; that the right to buy, sell, and hold men for purposes of gain, was given by express permission of G.o.d, and sanctioned by Christ and his apostles; that this right is founded on the golden rule; and says Dr. Shannon of Bacon College, Ky., "I hardly know which is most unaccountable, the profound ignorance of the Bible, or the sublimity of cool impudence and infidelity manifested by those who profess to be Christians; and yet dare affirm that the Book of G.o.d gives no sanction to slaveholding." All these affirmations are fairly summed up thus: "As slavery was practiced by the patriarchs, received sanction and legality from G.o.d in the Mosaic law, and was not denounced by Christ and his apostles, it must have been right. If right then, it is so still; therefore Southern slavery is right."

On the other hand, it is contended that chattel slavery is nowhere warranted or sanctioned by the Bible, but is totally opposed both to its spirit and teachings.

It will be the object of the present discussion to determine which of these opinions is correct.

SLAVERY DEFINED.

What, then, is chattel slavery as understood in American law?

1. It is not the relation of wife or child. In one sense a man may be said to "possess" these; but he can not buy or sell them. These are natural relations; and he who violates them for the sake of gain is branded by all as barbarous and criminal.

2. Not the relation of apprentice or minor. This is temporary, having for its primary object, not the good of the master or guardian, but that of the apprentice or minor, his education and preparation for acting his part as a free and independent member of society; but chattelism is _life_ bondage, for the _sole_ good of the master.

3. Not the relation of service by contract. Here a bond or agreement is implied, and therefore reciprocal rights, and the mutual power of dissolution on failure of either in the terms of mutual agreement; but chattelism ignores and denies the ability of the slave to _make a contract_.

4. Not serfdom or villeinage. The serf or villein was attached to the glebe or soil, and could not be severed from it, deprived of his family, or sold to another as a chattel; being retained as part of the indivisible feudal community. But the chattel slave is a "thing"

incapable of family relations, and may be sold when, where, or how the master pleases.

Chattelism is none of these relations; its principle is "property in man." Its definition is thus given in the law of Louisiana, (Civil Code, art. 35:) "A slave is one who is in the power of his master, to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, acquire nothing, but what must belong to his master."

South Carolina says, (Prince's Digest, 446,) "Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and a.s.signs, to all intents, purposes, and constructions whatsoever."

Judge Ruffin, giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, (case of State _v._ Mann,) says a slave is "one doomed in _his own person_ and _his posterity_ to live without knowledge, and without the capacity to make any thing his own, and to toil that another may reap the fruits."

We now come to the point at issue: Does the Bible sanction this system?

OLD TESTAMENT.

1. _Hebrew Terms._

The Hebrew terms used in reference to this subject are ?????, _auvadh_, "to serve;" the noun, ?????, _evedh_, "servant" or "bondman," one contracting service for a term of years; ????????, _saukir_, a "hired servant" daily or weekly; ?????, _aumau_, and ????????, _s.h.i.+phechau_, "maid-servant" or "handmaid;" but there is _no_ term in Hebrew synonymous with our word _slave_, for all the terms applied to servants are, as we shall show, equally applicable and applied to free persons.

The verb ?????, _auvadh_, according to Gesenius, signifies primarily, to labor; then, to labor for one's self, for hire, or compulsory labor as a captive or prisoner of war. Gen. 2:5, 15; 3:23; 29:15. Ex. 20:9; 21:2. Next, national servitude as tributary to others; as Sodom and the cities of the plain to Chedorlaomer, Gen. 14:4; Esau to Jacob, Gen.

25:23; the Israelites in Canaan to surrounding nations, Moabites, Philistines, and others, Judg. 3:8; Jer. 27:7, 9. Next, national and personal servitude or serfdom, as of the Israelites in Egypt. Lastly, the service of G.o.d or idols, Judg. 3:7, &c. From these and similar pa.s.sages we see that neither the generic nor specific meaning of the term, taken in its connections, implies chattel slavery, but labor, voluntary, hired, or compulsory, as of tributary nations or prisoners of war, whose claim to regain, if possible, their freedom and rights, is ever admitted and acted on; showing that freedom is the normal state of man, subjection and compulsory servitude the abnormal and unnatural.

But it is objected that, though the proper meaning of the verb "to serve" does not imply chattel slavery, it is certain that the derived noun ?????, _evedh_, translated "servant" and "bondman" in our version, is frequently used to designate involuntary servitude, the service of one "bought with money," and therefore a chattel slave. We reply, By far the most frequent use of this term, as is well known, represents either the common deferential mode of address of inferiors to superiors, or equals to equals, used then and to-day in the East, or the political subordination of inferior to superior rank invariably existing in Eastern governments. Otherwise we have Jacob saying to Esau, "The children which G.o.d hath graciously given thy" _slave_; and Joseph's brethren saying to him, "Thou saidst to thy _slaves_, Bring him down to me." "When we came up to thy _slave_ my father." Saul's officers and soldiers are his slaves, David is Jonathan's, and _vice versa_; Abigail, David's wife, is his slave; his people, officers, and even emba.s.sadors are all his slaves; all are slaves to each other, and none are masters, unless it be the king.

How, then, can we properly define the meaning and status of the term "servant" in any particular pa.s.sage? We answer, only by the context and the usage of the particular time and place, so far as known.

2. _The Curse of Canaan._

We first meet with the term "servant" in the oft-disputed pa.s.sage, Gen.

9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.... Blessed be the Lord G.o.d of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant." ... Now, as we have no state of servitude in the context or the usage of the times with which to compare this, and as only Canaan and his descendants are included in the curse, we must look to their subsequent history for the fulfillment of the prophecy, and the kind of servitude there implied.

We find the descendants of Canaan and their land defined in Gen.

10:15-20. They were not the Africans, as some ignorantly a.s.sert, but the Canaanites, who dwelt in Canaan, and were there destroyed by the Israelites, or rendered tributaries, except the Gibeonites, who were doomed to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water," the serfs of the temple service. Josh. 9:23, 27. There is not one word of buying and selling _individuals_--no chattelism, or any sanction of it; there is a performing of the service of the temple, or paying tribute, but never slaves or chattels. Canaan thus became the servant (not slave) of Shem; and when afterward Israel was oppressed and rendered tributary to other nations, the Canaanites became thus not only "servants," but "servants of servants."

3. _Patriarchal Servitude._

The next example of the word "servant" brings us to that epoch in relation to which the Harmony Presbytery of South Carolina says, "Slavery has existed from the days of those good old slaveholders Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (who are now in the kingdom of heaven,) to the time when the apostle Paul sent a runaway home to his master Philemon, and wrote a Christian and paternal letter to this slaveholder, which we find still stands in the canon of the Scriptures."

The account we have of Abraham's servants is briefly as follows: That he had men-servants and maid-servants, Gen. 12:16; 14:14; 17:27, (not _slaves_, for we have shown above by numerous pa.s.sages that to give such a definition to the term "servant" is false and absurd, unless sustained by the context or the usage of the times;) that they numbered some two thousand persons, (reckoning by the number of fighting men among them, generally one in five of the population,) were trained and accustomed to arms, Gen. 14:14; could inherit property, Gen. 15:3, 4; in religious ordinances were perfectly equal with the master, Gen. 17:10-14; had entire control not only over the property, but also the heirs of the household, Gen. 24:2-10; lastly, they were invariably considered as _men_, not slaves or chattels. Gen. 24:30, 32. "And the _man_ (servant of Abraham) came into the house, and he ungirded his camels, and gave straw and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet and the _men's_ feet that were with him."

"But," it is objected, "some of these servants were 'bought with money;'

therefore they must have been possessed as 'chattel slaves.'" This conclusion depends partly on the meaning of the Hebrew verb ?????, _kaunau_, "to buy;" and a.s.serts that whenever this term is applied to persons, it implies the relation of chattel slavery. The primary definition of the verb, given by Gesenius, is, to erect; then, 1. To found or create; 2. To get, gain, obtain, acquire, possess; 3. To get by purchase, to buy.

Let us see the meaning of this term, applied to persons in other pa.s.sages. In Gen. 31:15, Rachel and Leah say of their father, "He hath _sold_ us, and quite devoured also our money," referring to Jacob's long service for them; were they chattels? Gen. 47:23, Joseph _bought_ the Egyptians; were they chattels? Ex. 21:2, "If thou _buy_ a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing;" was he a chattel? Ruth 4:10, "Ruth the Moabitess have I _purchased_ this day to be my _wife_;" was she a chattel? These pa.s.sages clearly show that the simple application of the term "bought with money" does _not_ imply property and possession as a chattel.

The phrase "bought with money" relates, in the case of wives, to the dowry usual in Eastern countries; in the case of servants, to the ransom paid for captives in war, and paid by the individual on adoption into the tribe; or to an equivalent paid as hire of time and labor for a limited period, either to parents for their children as apprentices, &c., or to the individual himself, as Jacob to Laban. Gen. 31:41, "Thus have I been twenty years _in thy house_; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle, and thou hast changed my wages ten times." Thus Abraham could acquire a claim on the service of a man during life by purchase from himself; could acquire the allegiance of a man and his family, and all born in it, by contract, not to be broken but by mutual agreement; and in a few years have a vast household under his authority, "born in his house," and "bought with money," yet not one of them a slave.

Another general proof already alluded to is, that the terms ?????, "servant," and ?????, _naar_, "young man," are applied synonymously and equally to servants and free persons. Gen. 14:24, Abraham calls his servants young men, and again in Gen. 17:23, 27. So in Job 1:15-19, the term ????? is applied alike to Job's servants and sons. Also in Judg. 7:10; 19:3, 11, 19; 1 Sam. 9:3, 5, 10, 22, and numerous other places, these terms are applied indiscriminately to servants, showing that they were always regarded as men, never as chattels.

But we are not left to conjecture in regard to the status or condition of Abraham's servants; we will bring proofs showing that it could not have been chattel slavery.

Two of the fundamental characteristics of chattelism are, The status of the mother decides that of the child, and The slave, being property, can not inherit or possess property. Was this the condition of "servants" in patriarchal society? If so, then these characteristics brand them as chattels; but on the contrary, if no record is found of their being sold, (the buying we have already reasonably accounted for;) if the children of these servants were reckoned free, if they and their children could inherit property, then even American slave law and custom declare them free persons, and not chattels personal.

Take the case of Hagar. We read, Gen. 16:1, she was an Egyptian "handmaid, maid-servant," perhaps one of those referred to in Gen.

12:16. Abraham, at Sarah's instigation, makes her his concubine. The usual bickering of Eastern harems ensues. Hagar leaves the tribe, is sent back by the angel, Ishmael is born, and this son of a slave (?) is regarded not only as free, but heir of the house of Abraham. Years pa.s.s, and the wild, reckless Ishmael is seen ridiculing Isaac, his puny brother and coheir. At the sight, all the mother and the aristocrat again rise up in Sarah, and she cries out to Abraham, "Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for he shall not be heir with my son, even Isaac;" and Abraham, so far from regarding them as chattels personal, and selling them south, sends off the wild boy to be the wild, free Arab, "whose hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against his."

Take the case of Bilhah and Zilpah, given by Laban (Gen. 29:24, 29,) as handmaids (?????) to his daughters Leah and Rachel. Gen. 30:4-14.

They become Jacob's concubines, and bear him four sons--Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. Here the case is plain; the mothers are "servants," they have children, and these, instead of being (as in similar cases daily at the South) "reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal," are recognized as free and equal with the other sons, Reuben, Judah, &c., and become, like them, heads of tribes in Israel. In these cases,--and they are all which relate to the point at issue,--either the status of these servants _did_ or _did not_ decide that of their children. If it _did_, then, by the laws of chattelism, the children being free prove the mother (though servant) to be free; if it _did not_, then the mother was held only by feudal allegiance, while the children were always free.

In either case the conditions of chattelism did not exist; they were not slaves, but free persons in the same condition as members of wandering Arab and Tartar tribes to this day.

Did the second fundamental condition of chattelism mentioned above exist? The slave, being property, can not possess or inherit property.

In Gen. 15:3 we find Abraham complaining to the Lord, "Behold, to me thou hast given no seed, and lo, _one born in my house_ is my heir!" The same term is used here as in speaking of Abraham's other servants; and yet this "servant" is declared by Abraham his acknowledged heir. Here there is a manifest contradiction of the conditions of a chattel slave.

They can not inherit property; this man could; therefore he was not a slave. It is an entirely gratuitous a.s.sumption to a.s.sert that Abraham's dependents were slaves; for similar cases occur daily in nomadic tribes, as formerly they did in Scottish clans. If the chief has no child capable of succeeding him in office, he chooses from his dependents some tried and trusty warrior, and adopts him as lieutenant or henchman, to succeed him as heir or chief. Just so Abraham, then nearly eighty years old, despairing of a son to take his place as chief of the tribe, adopted some young warrior (perhaps a leader in the battle of Hobah) as his heir, with the proviso of resigning in favor of a son if any be born. But in the case of Jacob's four sons the conclusion is self-evident--children of "servants" or "handmaids," yet recognized as free like the other sons, sharing the property of the father equally with them;--the conditions of a state of chattelism did not exist.

These things prove conclusively that the term "servant" never meant _slave_ in patriarchal families; that the term "bought with money"

referred only to feudal allegiance or service for a time agreed on by both parties. These servants could possess and inherit property; their children were free; they were trained to the use of arms; in religious matters master and servant were alike and equal; and they were always considered and called _men_, never slaves or chattels,--all which are directly contrary to the principles and express enactments of American slave law, and are the characteristics of free persons even at the South. Add to this the significant fact that not one word is said in the patriarchal records of _selling_ any of these servants, (the only act mentioned of selling a human being is that of Joseph by his brethren, so bitterly reprobated and repented of by them soon after,) though frequently bought; that no fugitive law existed, in fact could not exist in a wandering tribe,--and the natural conclusion is, that they were not slaves, but free men and women; and therefore the records of patriarchal society conclusively deny the existence of chattel slaves or slavery as one of its inst.i.tutions.

Years pa.s.s, and we find the Israelites reduced to a servile condition as the serfs of the Egyptians. G.o.d, in his purposes, allowed them to remain thus for a time, and then, instead of sanctioning even this modified form of slavery, demanded their instant release; and on refusal, with terrible judgments on their oppressors, he led forth that army of fugitive slaves, and drowned their pursuers in the Red Sea.

4. _Mosaic Laws._

We come next to the sanction and authority of chattel slavery claimed to exist in the laws and economy of these people just escaped from bondage, and framed by him who had shown his displeasure against slavery by nearly destroying a nation of slaveholders for holding and catching slaves. The arguments for this claim are--1. That the term "servant" or "bondman" used in the Mosaic law means chattel slavery; 2. That in certain cases the Hebrews might hold their brethren as slaves for ever; 3. They might buy slaves from the heathen around, and hold them for ever. These positions, we admit, have some plausibility, and have doubtless had great weight in producing the opinion that chattelism is sanctioned by the Bible. We propose to consider the condition of the cla.s.ses of servants referred to in their order.

1. _Hebrew servants._ These were of four kinds--servants under contract or indenture for six years, probably from one sabbatic year to another: servants held till the year of jubilee, or "for ever:" children born in the house, or hired out by their parents: convicted thieves; and afterward, though sanctioned by no law, debtors.